Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Primary Schools, Southwark

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of parents, relatives, friends, governors and staff directly concerned with the education of children in primary schools in Southwark. Fifteen hundred signatures are appended to the petition, which complains that there are a number of primary schools
which are or have been without their required number of teachers for days, weeks or even in some cases terms; that local children are being deprived of their entitlement to education including the right to be able to go to school; that it is unacceptable for children to be sent home because of the shortage of teachers; and that the education authority and Her Majesty's Government have a legal and educational responsibility to bring this crisis to an end.
Wherefore, on this last day of our term and of the school term, the petitioners pray that our
honourable House urge Her Majesty's Government to ensure that there arc sufficient good permanent teachers to fill all teaching places at our primary schools, in particular by September 1987; ensure that sufficient teachers are trained so that we never again have shortages of the present magnitude; ensure that the administration, direction, and organisation of the teaching profession and of the education service is made a priority for the next academic year and that housing authorities are charged with the responsibility of providing sufficient accommodation to meet the needs of teachers; and ensure most importantly that the teaching profession is once again restored to a status and a position where young people are able, eager and ready to become teachers in our capital city.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.

To lie upon the Table.

British Caledonian Airways

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Dick Douglas: I am grateful to the House for the opportunity to raise the matter of the British Airways bid for British Caledonian on a motion to adjourn the House. The subject was raised in the House on 16 July by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who said that trade union members first heard of the matter on their car radios. I know that the Government have made great play of giving the trade unions back to their members and have stressed that their policy of privatisation has involved many employees in direct ownership of major concerns. I shall have more to say about that in the later stages of my remarks. I shall

deal with the trade unions' legitimate worries about the conditions of the merger. The workers are rightly anxious about their jobs and employment prospects.
One of the ironic aspects of the proposal is that I represent a constituency with high unemployment and I note the involvement of Lord King. He is the chairman of Babcocks, which is involved in Rosyth dockyard where, apparently, the rights and wishes of the workers were and are disregarded, first when Babcocks received the management contract for the dockyard and now when another company, FKI, has made a bid for Babcocks.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to consider the Civil Aviation Act 1979 and some of the remarks of the former right hon. Member for South Down, Mr. Powell, during that debate. He said:
When the House passed a series of nationalisation statutes 30 years ago, on what was called the Morrison model, it initiated a constitutional innovation which took some decades to digest. Eventually, though imperfectly, the House has come to grips with the problem of exerting proper control over the old-style nationalised industry, both on capital account and on its operations, without destroying the notion of a semi-commercial operation which was embedded in the statutes that set up such industries." — [Official Report, 19 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 66.]
Over a period the Government have divested themselves of ownership and control of a number of state enterprises because of the need to finance tax cuts and reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. The list is long and the few examples that I shall give are well known to the House — the British National Oil Corporation, Cable and Wireless, Rolls-Royce, British Gas and British Telecom. We know that British Airways is involved as well. I echo Enoch Powell's remarks about the imperfect method that we adopted to control these organisations, but at least there were searchlights of public scrutiny that could he used to investigate the operations of massive publicly owned concerns, many of them being public utilities that served the nation.
Few will argue that in terms of public consumer satisfaction there have been dramatic changes for the better in the operation of British Telecom, for example, British Gas or British Airways. The Labour party has not found a satisfactory or adequate answer to its present rejection of the Morrisonian concept, but it is patent that the idea that these massive monopolies can be left entirely in the private domain to determine their market operations will not stand any detailed analysis.
During the exchanges on 16 July my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield quoted from the Civil Aviation Authority's report on competition policy in 1984. It is a formidable document that will be well known to all hon. Members who are interested in these matters. I accept that there have been many changes since 1984, however, and that things have moved ahead, especially interchanges in the international economy. I accept also that these developments permit modifications of such strictures as appear in the sixth paragraph of the report. Nevertheless, for a benchmark I intend, with the approval of the House, to quote that paragraph. It is rather long but it has a thrust that I consider to be germane to the debate. It reads:
It is sometimes argued that a single major British airline would be stronger than a multiplicity of airlines in competing with those other countries. In the United States it is the big airlines, with strong hub systems, that seem to be coming out on top in the deregulated environment. It is typical of most foreign countries that each has only one international flag carrier. There are, however, serious risks and substantial disadvantages in the pursuit of a single airline policy. A single


British international airline competing with its counterparts in Europe and in many other countries within a closely regulated framework of bilateral air services agreements would have less incentive to develop markets or to introduce new products that were of no interest to its commercial partners and would, in particular, be more likely to neglect the needs of would-be passengers with relatively limited available means, as is the case for example in Germany today and as was the case with the predecessors of British Airways, when the competition from other British airlines was much less than it is today. There would be a greater likelihood that a sole British international flag carrier would sooner or later become, again, a high-cost and high-fare operator, competing in terms of products rather than price. Such an airline, enjoying and indeed requiring a protected environment, would be exposed, as British Airways and its predecessors were in the past and as many European airlines are today, to the upward pressures of labour costs and low productivity.
That is a formidable stricture. I welcome the ministerial view that there have been changes since 1984, but they are changes that do not permit the Government to stand back and let the market take its course. As I have said, there have been many changes in the international economy that compel a modification of outlook, but to the best of my knowledge the Government have adhered, in the main, to the thrust of the 1984 outlook, at least until the past few weeks.
In a stirring speech, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who before becoming Secretary of State for the Environment was Secretary of State for Transport—if anyone can imagine the right hon. Gentleman making a stirring speech—at the International Aviation Club at Washington DC on 14 February 1986 said:
we have to maintain some safeguards in relation to domestic competition. We have got an unbalanced situation. BA represents about three quarters of our industry. We cannot be indifferent if airlines go out of business in the United Kingdom. In view of the inequalities of scale, we have to hold the ring.
I do not know whether the Government have changed their policy in the past few weeks but I imagine that they have. In what direction has their policy changed? Later in his speech to the International Aviation Club the Secretary of State said:
Both BA and BCal are used to competition. They thrive on it where opportunities are fair and equal, and they back me to the hilt in my campaign to maximise competition and minimise bureaucratic intervention in matters which ought to be the province of commercially orientated airline management.
The thought of anyone backing the right hon. Gentleman is mind boggling, but it is probable, indeed possible, that that happened.
The Secretary of State talked about not being indifferent about airlines going out of business, and I have some questions to ask about that. On 16 July the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:
We have known within the Government about the possibility of this bid for about a week."—[Official Report, 16 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 1278.]
I am not privy to such discussions, but presumably both British Caledonian and British Airways made representations to the Government and gave some indications of their financial and trading position. I imagine that British Caledonian did that especially in terms of the short-term prospects of returning to profit if it remained independent.
We have been told that if British Caledonian remains independent, its main hope of returning to profit is likely to be largely dependent upon further continuing sales of

assets and job losses. If that is the position, were the Government indifferent? If they were so informed, what was their response? Did Ministers say that the only solution was to go ahead with the merger with BA, giving, in effect, a tacit, if not clear, indication of their approval of the merger? Or did they say, in contradiction of what was said by the previous Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, that they were indifferent to what happened? They either had a view on the merger and expressed it to the companies or they did not. What concern did the Minister show for probable job losses? Did Sir Adam Thomson, if he was present at any of these discussions between the Minister and British Caledonian, explain what had brought about the dramatic change in British Caledonian's attitude to British Airways? As early as 9 January 1987 Sir Adam was quoted in the Financial Times as saying:
British Caledonian and our political supporters will be looking towards the Government's airline competition policy and those who administer it to be the strong unassailable arbiters of true competition and fair play in a British air transport industry where all airlines are privately owned but in which one, by virtue of its historical background, is six times the size of its nearest rival.
Did any Ministers or the staff calculate what the difference in size would be between the proposed merged concern and the nearest United Kingdom rival now? I suspect that when Ministers were told of the proposal they said, in effect, "We cannot do anything for you, British Caledonian. Just let the market take its course." I doubt whether the companies were even told that the Office of Fair Trading was to be asked to consider the matter.
The difficulty that we all have to face is that jobs are threatened and that the survival prospects of a major industrial concern that has enjoyed our support are pretty limited if the merger does not take place. We all know that anything that comes from the Director General of Fair Trading could be subject to ministerial veto. Anyone who has studied the Fair Trading Act, 1973 cannot but come to the conclusion that the matter should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. However, when the director general has weighed up all the balances, the fact will remain that serious pressures have been brought about through no fault of the company, caused by changes in the world oil market and events in Libya and elsewhere. The company is in serious difficulties. The Government are therefore likely to veto any proposal from the Director General of Fair Trading that the merger be referred, and it will go ahead. However, for good reasons, I very much doubt that my suspicions will be confirmed this morning.
Real-world economics are making nonsense of the Government's so-called competition policy. The comments by the CAA to the Office of Fair Trading that I have read in today's newspapers clearly indicate that, if the merger goes ahead, all the previous views expressed about airline competition policy will be as naught. The House ought to take a stringent view and examine the concept of safeguarding consumer interests in a new environment.
I am not concerned about the consequences for my own party. Economies of scale are important, and the need to finance costly equipment and highly technical assets drive a company towards such economies. I should like to know the Minister's view on that. What assurances can he give about the ordering of equipment by British Caledonian? If the merger proceeds, will British Caledonian's orders for


Airbus also proceed? Has the Minister inquired about that? Those of us with an interest in the employment position are especially anxious.
Above all, we know that markets are not free. I have never been lobbied so much on any issue that has been discussed in the House. That lobbying has come from both the companies and the trade unions, and I do not object to it. However, any idea that matters such as this are open to the free play of market forces is for the birds. These are political issues and, as such, should be subject to political ventilation in the House. The Government's privatisation measures have comprehensively removed vast monopolies, many of them providing public utilities, from the searchlight of public scrutiny. The decision not to intervene, and to veto any proposals from the Director General of Fair Trading, is a political decision.
Let me end on this note: the Government's argument was that we should give the airline back to the people—to the shareholders and the workers. A moment's examination of British Ariways' balance sheet shows how farcical that is. I may not be as good as I used to be at doing my "goesintos", as I used to say when I was at Hills Trust school in Govan, but my information is that British Airways has about 400,000 shareholders, of whom 0·2 per cent. own 50·3 per cent. of the shares. That means that 80 or 90 shareholders own half the company. Whatever decision the Government make, massive monopoly power will be given, in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, to a handful of folk. We are told that that is in the public interest. That is for the birds. No hon. Member on either side of the House who is genuinely worried about the public interest should advocate standing back and letting market forces operate without saying or doing anything about it.
As a lifelong trade unionist, I am 100 per cent. in favour of trying to preserve jobs. However, I am also a consumer, with the national interest to consider. That is especially important to my party. We cannot always yield to producer interests; sometimes we must stand back and ask ourselves, "What power are we giving to these people?" I do not know what my party's policy will be, later, but I know that to continue perpetually with privatisation, while misleading ourselves into believing that there is some aura of democracy about it because the market determines the position, cannot he justified in the Mother of Parliaments.

Mr. Terry Dicks: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) for this opportunity to speak. Let me first declare an interest as a shareholder of British Airways, and also as the Member of Parliament representing Heathrow.
I believe that there has been some misunderstanding over the merger. It is intended to give British Airways an opportunity to compete more effectively in the international markets, and, in that sense, the issue is not about domestic competition. However, if the merger is not allowed to go ahead, British Airways will have great difficulty in competing in world markets.
There is no need whatever to refer the merger to either the Office of Fair Trading or the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The approach by British Airways to British Caledonian was based purely on the financial aspect. It must be borne in mind that British Caledonian was

experiencing bad financial problems. It may interest the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West to know that there was some potential for the takeover of British Caledonian by a foreign airline. That would have been the worst thing that could have happened to British aviation. It is far better that the number one airline in the country, and indeed the world, whose planes fly in and out of its hub at Heathrow—the world's biggest international airport—should come together with British Caledonian, with a view to producing, as I am sure it will, a competent and highly effective international airline.
Lord King and Mr. Colin Marshall have done an excellent job at British Airways not only for the aviation industry and the airline but for the workers, many of whom are shareholders and are very happy with the turnaround that those two men have brought about. For politicians, most of whom could not organise a good booze-up in a brewery, to start interfering in a highly complex, technical matter does a great disservice to the aviation industry. The House should mind its own business when it comes to a properly organised merger such as this. We must allow British Airways to get on with the job as it is fit and competent to do.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I thank the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) for kindly allowing me to intervene for a few minutes in this important debate, and I congratulate him on being fortunate enough to obtain this slot today.
I am entirely opposed to the merger going ahead without reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I speak for a sizeable number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who feel that there is no point in setting up an Office of Fair Trading and a Monopolies and Mergers Commission if we do not listen to what they say and follow the machinery that we have installed to deal with matters such as that that came before the House and the country a week ago.
I am also critical of the timing of the announcement, one week before the House rises for the summer recess. I suspect that that timing was deliberate, designed to limit discussion and possible opposition. It coincides with the timetable for CAP-500 in 1984, when the debate about competition in civil aviation raged for over a week just before the House rose. The result was disastrous. The Government's decision in 1984 has resulted in this proposed merger.
British Airways has put an ultimatum before the country. It says that if it is not allowed to take over British Caledonian immediately, without reference to the public watchdog, the company will go bust and its offer will lapse. Let me examine its offer. It is three times the asset value of British Caledonian. Who pays three times the market value for any company? Only those who want a monopoly and are prepared to pay more than anyone else. British Airways wants a monopoly in the civil aviation industry.
It is not just a question of having a monopoly stake in the civil aviation industry. I am told that the chairman of British Caledonian will receive a golden handshake of between £2·5 million and £3 million and that the institutional investors stand to gain £100 million. Are we prepared to allow a merger that will benefit the chairman of British Caledonian and the institutional investors? It


would be good for them, but it would be bad for the travelling public and for prices. It would also be bad for competition and for the independent airlines.
Lord King says that he welcomes competition, but with over 91 per cent. of all the international routes he knows that nobody will be able to compete with him. He says that he welcomes competition at Gatwick and Heathrow. Of course he does. He knows that he controls the critical peak hour slots at both Heathrow and Gatwick. The independent airlines can fly into Gatwick and Heathrow only outside peak times.
The European Commission has said that it is to take action to deal with anti-competition practices in aviation. If British Airways merges with British Caledonian, it will make our demands about anti-competitive practices a sick joke. It is feared that British Caledonian will be bought by a foreign airline, but that cannot happen. Because of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, only a 49 per cent interest can be bought by a foreign airline.
British Caledonian could be perfectly profitable if it were properly run, under new management. If inefficiency could be eliminated, because of the under-utilisation of aeroplanes and buildings, if trade union dominance could be brought under control and if a realistic price were to be paid for it—not £230 million but £80 million or £90 million—it could be competitive again and become a second force in this country.
The new conglomerate of British Airways and British Caledonian would dominate both international routes and domestic services. It has a stake in some of the feeder airlines, such as Brymon, it has dominance over Stolport and it dominates the computer and ramp handling networks. The civil aviation industry will go rapidly into decline if a massive conglomerate runs our civil aviation industry.
As for the mega-carrier argument, the only mega-carriers are in the United States. Cathay Pacific and Singapore Airlines, the most successful airlines, are roughly the same size as British Airways. This matter must go before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If it does not, our civil aviation industry will be damaged.

Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) on introducing this debate. What he said made a great deal of sense and it ought to be considered by my hon. Friend the Minister. I have three questions to put to him. Do the Government intend to comply with the provisions of the Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965? Do they not accept that, according to the Act, an organisation that carries 90 per cent. of the passengers, over 85 per cent. of the freight and over 84 per cent. of the royal mail must be judged to be a monopoly? If he does, should not the matter go before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) said that it is not for politicians to interfere in commercial matters, but if, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West suggested, Lord King is about to run an omnibus through the law of the land that should not be allowed to happen. If this merger goes through, it will tear in half the Conservative party's policy on which I

fought the last general election. We made it clear that our privatisation policy would continue, but if this merger is allowed to take place, that policy will be torn in half.
A large part of the argument has centred around the mega-carriers, but the mega-carrier business is nearly always internal business. Outside America or Japan, British Airways is as big as any airline and can compete effectively. It does not need British Caledonian.
I greatly admire what Sir Adam Thomson has done at British Caledonian. I hope that British Caledonian will be allowed to compete. It has made British Airways great. British Airways needs competition. Competition is what the Conservative party has always stood for. I hope that it will continue to follow that policy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) on raising such a topical matter for debate. The House should ventilate clearly its views on competition policy and the implications of the proposed merger as they affect that policy.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) for his speech. He has a reputation for tenaciously defending his constituents' interests. He, with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, is interested in creating and preserving jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) adopts a rigorous approach. He understands that it is excruciatingly difficult for Ministers at the Dispatch Box, faced with such a reference, either publicly to endorse or publicly to denounce the views that he has expressed. Such a discussion would be more appropriate, perhaps, in the Tea Room. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) also referred to fundamental issues with which I shall try to deal.
I have listened with great interest to the variety of opinions expressed. Those who are against a merger support a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The House will understand why I must refrain from addressing the detail of the arguments in this case. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the House in response to a question last Thursday from the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Director General of Fair Trading plays an important advisory role in merger cases such as this. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State is awaiting the director general's advice on whether this case should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for further investigation, and it would therefore not be right for me to prejudge any advice that he may give by expressing any views about the merits or otherwise of the proposed merger at this stage. I am, however, sure that the director general will take into account the views that hon. Members have expressed in the debate. Of course, any hon. Member is entirely free to make such points directly to the director general's office, but I have no doubt that the director general will closely examine the Hansard report of the debate.

Mr. Steen: Will the Minister send it to him?

Mr. Butcher: In response to my hon. Friend's sotto voce intervention, I shall indeed be the postman in that regard. I draw his attention to the comments already made.
In the time available to me it might be helpful if I outline to hon. Members the statutory procedures that are in place for considering mergers and merger proposals and the criteria that are taken into account in examining their actual or likely effect.
The Fair Trading Act 1973 established a three-stage procedure for the scrutiny of mergers. The first stage involves the Director General of Fair Trading and his office. The director general has a duty under the Act among other things to keep himself informed about merger situations qualifying for investigation and to advise my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State whether they should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. But, as hon. Members have said, my right hon. and noble Friend takes the decision whether to refer a merger and his consideration of the issues involved forms the second stage in the process. The Secretary of State is not bound by the advice that he receives from the director general; he has discretion whether to refer a merger, although clearly, in making his decision, he will attach considerable weight to the advice that he receives from the director general.
What, then, are the factors that the Director General of Fair Trading and my right hon. and noble Friend take into account in considering whether a reference to the MMC would he appropriate? I refer to the issues that have been raised by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton. Section 84—it is still current and is still being applied in policy terms — of the Fair Trading Act stipulates that, in determining whether a merger may be expected to operate against the public interest, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission shall take into account all matters that appear to it in the particular circumstances to be relevant, including specific factors such as the desirability of maintaining and promoting competition, the interests of consumers, the effect of a merger on prices and technical and product development, the entry of new competitors into a market, employment, and export competitiveness. The public interest is more or less thus defined and its criterion is thus cast wide.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister assure me that he will write to me about the Airbus matter?

Mr. Butcher: I shall refer to that in a moment.
The director general therefore turns his attention to all aspects of a merger that may have a bearing on the public interest, and my right hon. and noble Friend will also take into account all relevant factors in reaching his decision.
Our policy on references to the commission, however, remains that announced by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), in July 1984, that

merger references would be made primarily on grounds of competition, having regard to the international context. That reflects our belief that competition encourages productive efficiency, increases consumer choice and ensures that the customer—whether industry or the man in the street—gets value for money. But that does not mean that the director general and my right hon. arid noble Friend do not look at non-competition aspects of mergers or merger proposals. Nor does it mean that our policy is never to make references on grounds other than competition. Although such cases have been the exception rather than the rule, there are examples, notably Elders IXL's bid for Allied Lyons, which was referred in 1985 on grounds of the "leveraged" financing of the proposal.
There is then the question of what happens when my right hon. and noble Friend decides whether to refer a merger to the commission. If his decision is that it should not be referred——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I have to remind the Minister it is now 10·15. Would he bring his remarks to a very swift close?

Mr. Butcher: Without your guidance, Madam 'Deputy Speaker, I had assumed that I had a further six minutes to reply to the matters that have been raised.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are on the Adjournment debate. In an Adjournment debate, the timing factors are agreed as a matter of convenience, not absolute. As we lost some time at the start of the debate—the matter is of national importance — I ask the House to agree that the Minister's speech should continue for another five or six minutes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for the House or for me to give away other Members' time. These Adjournment debates are strictly timed. I can be lenient to the extent of giving the Minister an extra minute to wind up. That is why I gave him a warning that I would give him precisely that minute.

Mr. Butcher: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the House welcomes your ruling on the matter.
We have not laid down any stipulation about whether the current pattern of ordering should continue. Of course, that is a downstream employment issue that will have to be considered. I reassure the House that that ostensibly side issue of major importance will be borne in mind, I assume, by the director general and my right hon. Friend.
The question——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Andrew MacKay.

Central Berkshire

Mr. Andrew MacKay: ; I welcome my hon. Friend the new Under-Secretary of State to the debate. I am only saddened by the fact that the first time that she and I are to have an exchange across the Floor of the House will not be a more pleasant occasion. This is the only time when I am in fundamental disagreement with the policies of a Government whom I robustly support. My hon. Friend's Department and her colleagues have made several errors of judgment recently.
I shall refer to the history of the problem of excessive development in central Berkshire, raise three specific constituency points and conclude by explaining that the problem is not parochial or a local issue, but one of national importance that affects other Government policies. I stress that feelings are running extremely high throughout central Berkshire, not just in my constituency, but in those of my hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who hopes to catch your eye shortly, Madam Deputy Speaker, and for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan), who would have liked to be present today and wishes to be associated with my remarks.
I make it abundantly clear that we are not Luddite and opposed to any development in our area. We understand that there must be development and that life must go on. We are not trying to protect our own interests and ignore the national interest. However, in recent years we have been positively inundated with new housing developments. The previous Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, was good enough to take up my request to fly over central Berkshire in a helicopter. He was horrified by what he saw—a complete urban sprawl developing from Greater London and Slough throughout central Berkshire and heading towards Reading and Swindon.
We have a new town at Bracknell. I do not think that it is unfair and unbiased of me to say that it is the most successful of our new towns. However, if we are not careful it will expand into many delightful rural villages, such as Warfield, Binfield and Winkfield Row, and on into the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham. The people who live in the town of Bracknell or in those village communities will have little green space and will be living, as I have said, in a total urban sprawl.
I refer now to our specific complaints. We are in the process of preparing the central Berkshire structure plan. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be aware that I gave evidence a year ago this month to her inspector and said that I believed we should have a zero option on the increase of development in the structure plan. Twelve months have now passed, but the structure plan is not yet available in its final form. We are led to believe that it will appear fairly shortly. We have had discussions with my hon. Friend's colleagues on this point and I have no wish to dwell on that now. However, we were amazed to find that two outstanding appeals in my constituency, one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham and another in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East, had been recently allowed.
I shall refer only to the two appeals that affect my constituency, one on the Carnation Nurseries site at Winkfield and the second at Wicks Green in the village of

Binfield. Apart from thinking that it is fundamentally wrong to change the nature of those villages by allowing such massive expansion, I was appalled to learn that the appeals were allowed by the Secretary of State, when we all know that the structure plan is pending and that it will be published sooner rather than later. It seems totally irresponsible to have allowed those appeals when neither the developers, my constituents nor myself have any idea of what the Secretary of State will think proper for the size of future developments in central Berkshire. I believe that the right policy would have been not to allow those appeals, but to await the results of the structure plan.
The granting of those appeals was wrong because, as I have said, they have fundamentally changed the nature of the villages concerned. They are destroying some of the few remaining green field sites in central Berkshire and putting the most unreasonable stresses on roads, schools, hospitals and other services. It is all very well for the developers and for the Secretary of State to go ahead with such developments, but nobody helps us to improve the roads or to increase the number of hospitals or schools—far from it. We are left with the problem and it is my constituents, not the Secretary of State, the inspectors or the developers, who suffer accordingly.
More specifically, I ask my hon. Friend whether she is aware that, along with my constituents, my district council at Bracknell and all my parish councillors, I favour the zero option in the structure plan. Assuming that we are not successful in the zero option, can we presume that the houses that the Secretary of State has allowed to be built at Wicks Green and Carnation Nurseries and on the two sites in the Wokingham district council area will be included in any number of houses that is mentioned in the structure plan? The Secretary of State would add insult to injury if we found that not only had those two appeals been granted, but that we were asked for additional houses in the structure plan because the houses allowed under the appeals could not he included.
I refer now to an area which may well be sub judice, so I shall be careful about what I say. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be unable to respond. We are all aware that other appeals are pending. I ask my hon. Friend to request the Secretary of State to ensure that those appeals are disallowed, at least pending the publication of the structure plan so that at last note will be taken of local opinion, voiced not only by hon. Members but by every elected representative in Berkshire.
I give a warning, because I wonder why some of my councillors bother to stand for election. What is the point of serving on a planning committee if every time that one makes a decision that does not meet with the full satisfaction of the developers the developers immediately go to appeal and all too often the appeals are allowed? Quite frankly, I wonder whether I should advise Bracknell district council, the royal borough of Windsor and my parish councils that in the interests of my ratepayers, and to save some money, they should cut the number of their planning officials and abolish their planning committees.
There seems no purpose in electing local people to represent our views on planning, only to have them constantly overruled by somebody who has not even set foot in the area and who has no knowledge of local problems. That is deeply frustrating and insulting to those who, for no financial reward, give up a great deal of their time to serve the community on parish, district, borough and county councils. I want to make it absolutely clear to


the House that we are undermining local government by riding rough shod over it and allowing planning by appeal. That is immensely damaging and should stop as soon as possible.
I turn now to the national issues. I strongly support the Government's policy of rejuvenating the inner cities. At 3 o'clock in the morning, after our famous and magnificent election victory, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stood on the steps of central office and said that there was much work to be done and that her priority was the inner cities. I suggest that my right hon. Friend's priority is being thwarted by Ministers at the Department of the Environment.
At one time in my earlier career I was a director of our family housebuilding business, so I know a little about development. l advise my hon. Friend that if a developer has a choice between building on a green field site in Berkshire or elsewhere, or reclaiming some difficult inner-city site, he will opt — naturally and rightly—for the shire county green field site. He is right to do so because he must think of his shareholders, employees and himself. My criticism is not of the developers, but of the Secretary of State and the Ministers who have bent over backwards to help the developers. If we are successfully to rejuvenate the inner cities, and to do so with the help of the private sector, as the Government rightly want, we must discourage unreasonable and unnecessary development in the shire counties. If we do not do so, we shall not succeed in the inner cities.
Some people suggest that we have a north-south divide. I do not believe that, and I do not want to rehearse the arguments as to why I do not believe it. But, and a big hut, I have no real unemployment in my constituency, nor does my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham. My knuckles are regularly rapped by employers who say to me, "I have still shortages. How do I find cleaners, computer operators and a thousand other employees?" If we encourage development in the south-east, we shall discourage it in regions where there is genuine unemployment. It is in the national interest that unemployment is fought, but there is no fight in my area.
One can go to a jobcentre in Bracknell and find 400 vacancies at any one time. I do not buy the argument that if multinationals or small companies cannot set up in Thames valley they will immediately leave for the continent. They will go willingly to the midlands, the north, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, provided they are discouraged from coming to Thames valley and are told by the local authority that there is no room for expansion. They will then move to other areas, where house prices are cheaper, the environment has not been as spoilt as ours has been in recent years by these appeals being allowed, and where there is a plentiful supply of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled labour. That is why we should oppose excessive development.
We referred to five years' supply of land. In allowing the two appeals to which I have referred and, I suspect, my hon. Friend's case, the reason given was that we perhaps did not have five years' supply of land in Bracknell or Wokingham. What is five years' supply of land? How long is a length of string? I do not know. The implication is that we must always have a five years' supply of building land to develop. When Carnation Nurseries is developed, some other plot must be produced to replace it, and on we go.

The logical conclusion must be that every last piece of land will get used. When we have a complete concrete jungle, I am not sure what we do about it.
I cannot believe that we can continue to say, "Every area of so-called growth in the south-east must have a five-year supply of land." whether it be for 5,000 or 500 houses. I do not believe that it is right or proper to carry on building across our environment so that there is no open space and the communities, villages and towns that I represent are wholly destroyed.
I hope that the Minister will pass to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Housing and Planning the grievous concerns of my constituents. I hope she will make it abundantly clear that we are worried, not just for ourselves, our children and grandchildren, but because Government policies to tackle unemployment and to rejuvenate the inner cities will not and cannot work while this crass stupidity continues to allow appeals on the development of green field sites in central Berkshire.

Mr. John Redwood: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) for allowing me time in this important debate and for the forthright, clear way in which he expressed our joint anxieties. The anxieties of Wokingham are very much those of Bracknell, but while we like and admire Bracknell, we do not wish to grow closer by physical development. A green wedge is needed between settlements, otherwise the danger of growing urban sprawl from London to well beyond Reading will arise. That will be the direct result of the policies pursued by those who determine appeals in the Department of the Environment.
Wokingham district has not been unco-operative in recent years and in the past six years we have seen some 10,000 new houses constructed. That is a 27 per cent. increase in the housing stock on 1981. It is a massive development on a huge scale and has completely changed the nature of many parts of the rural Wokingham district. The district has not resisted development on every site or every opportunity for new housing. The case recently determined against the district on appeal illustrates how dangerous and damaging it can be for appeals against the council to be successful when it has pursued a sensible policy.
The Keep Hatch development which is now to go ahead because of appeal, for example, was one of the two sites examined by the district council. It opted reluctantly, and a little against its will, to allow development at Glebelands. It did so in the belief that some new houses had to go somewhere; that it was best able to make the decision locally, although it was wildly unpopular for it to do so; and that it would be backed up by the Department of the Environment seeing the importance of retaining the Keep Hatch site safe and as part of the important green barrier between Wokingham and Bracknell.
What was the point of the council making that difficult decision and allowing some houses to be built on a slightly less sensitive site when all its plans were blown sky-high by an appeal decision, which was bad planning and bad politics? The natural reaction of my district councillors in Wokingham must be to say that in future they will not be prepared to identify sites because, if they identify sites arid make careful decisions between sites, rejecting some as


being wholly unsuitable, it is possible that on appeal the developers will succeed because of Department of the Environment decisions.
As my hon. Friend said, this is important because it is of major and national significance. By allowing the recent rate of growth in Wokingham without making resources or plans available for improving local health services, schools and the road network, grave problems are produced locally. At the same time pitiful problems of decline are experienced in our inner urban areas from which people are busily migrating. We then reach the ridiculous position where there is insufficient hospital and school accommodation in the high-growth areas. We then incur the financial and political costs of closing schools, hospitals or wards of hospitals in inner London and even in urban centres elsewhere in the south-east. This is not to mention the north and the north-west which desperately need jobs, enterprise and houses and already have the public facilities, which, however, are under pressure because thousands of people are decamping to the south-east because of the planning policy being pursued.
A district council faces an additional difficulty if a developer is given permission on appeal when the district has not wished to see the development take place. Its bargaining power to influence the nature and style of the development and to enjoy some of the benefits which would accrue to the developer from the profits of that development is lost. How can a local council demand a reasonable provision of infrastructure — shops, roads and other facilities — if planning permission has been given on appeal without any thought to the gain that will be made by the developer or the way in which some of that gain could be enjoyed by the local authority and the local community? One of the great advantages of allowing sensible local authorities to make decent decisions for their community is that they take all such factors into account.
Local authorities can strike a deal with the developer, if development must go ahead, that ensures that some of that gain can be used for the provision of infrastructure and those services that the development clearly requires. We are in danger of losing all that bargaining power if we reach the stage where planning decisions are made on appeal and not where they should be made, in the elected chambers of local authorities.
I believe that there is a distinction between planning for green field sites and planning for urban or rundown areas. I find it curious, in Berkshire, for example, that the population of Reading town is falling and yet my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) has discovered that planning permissions are granted on appeal for the rural areas of his constituency. It seems strange indeed that, in the middle of the fastest growing and one of the most economically successful areas of the country, the prime town is still experiencing net migration while all the rural areas are in danger of being despoiled.
I would like to add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East in asking the Minister and the Ministry to take on board a few specific points. When appeals come up in the future on green field sites, will the Ministry bear in mind that they are different in kind from the appeals of restrictive local councils in urban areas, trying to stop prosperity coming back to derelict areas? Therefore, the Ministry should take a much harder view of the appellant's case and more often than not it should

presume — indeed, in every case in areas such as Wokingham—in favour of the local council that has made a sensible decision about those green field sites. It is important that the number of houses that have now been granted against us on the Keep Hatch site should be reduced in any future target that may be imposed or voted upon us for development under the new structure plan. It is important that the new structure plan is brought in quickly; I would like to see the Ministry make rapid progress on that. I urge that the structure plan takes into account the massive development that has already taken place. There is a need for a period of quiet and calm to shake down those developments to ensure that local services are adequate for the job that they now must perform before major new expansion is embarked upon.
I should like to think that the Ministry will also take into account the fact that the local council has done a good job by the local community and has not always taken the easy option. The Ministry, with its responsibilities throughout local government, should be able to distinguish between pure Luddites and councils that are in difficult circumstances but are doing a good job and take into account the views of their local area.
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I do not wish to constrain the Minister's time because there are many important points that we would like my hon. Friend to answer. Above all, we want the outrageous level of growth checked and we want a better deal for central Berkshire.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) for his initial kind remarks and I am grateful to him for raising the subject of development in Berkshire, which I know is a matter of great concern to all the other hon. Members in that county and to a great many people who live there.
My Department is fully aware of the anxieties felt in Berkshire about the impact that development, particularly housing development, has had on the strains put upon roads, schools and hospitals and those caused through the loss of the countryside. Berkshire Members have been assiduous through deputations to successive Secretaries of State, and indeed in previous Adjournment debates in 1983 and 1985, in ensuring that we are in no doubt of the strength of local feeling about those matters.
Of course, we fully recognise the very significant expansion that has taken place in Berkshire, particularly in central Berkshire. The county has seen the successful development of Bracknell new town and the emergence of Reading as a major business centre. The attractions of the county to developers are only too obvious; proximity to Heathrow, the M25 and the M4 corridors and not least the quality of the environment that has justified the county being called "Beautiful Berkshire".
Not all the factors promoting development are necessarily disadvantageous. They have contributed significantly to the growth of a strong, active, buoyant economy, with one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the country. Berkshire is acknowledged as a centre for high technology development with an international reputation that attracts inward investment to this country. The nation as a whole has reason to be grateful for the contribution that business in Berkshire is making to the regeneration of the national economy. However, there is


a price to pay for economic success, in the effect that the development needed to support the growth of business, industry and population must have on the environment and character of the area.
There is a need to take stock regularly to ensure that the pace of development does not exceed the capacity of the area to absorb it without damage or without creating serious imbalances between the provision of employment and housing and the provision of services. I also take my hon. Friend's point that we need to look carefully at the possible consequences for other less advantaged areas of the concentration of economic activity in counties such as Berkshire.
When my hon. Friend raised the question of development in Berkshire in the House in December 1983 he was advised that the proper forum for consideration of the future levels of development in the county was the then impending review of the Berkshire structure plans. Since that time the county council has submitted proposals for a replacement structure plan for the whole county to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and that is now under consideration.
The county's objective, set out in the plan, is to secure as sharp a decrease as possible in housebuilding rates. I need not tell my hon. Friends how much interest these proposals have raised. My hon Friend the Member for Berkshire, East and his colleagues the hon. Members for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) attended and spoke eloquently in support of the county council at the examination in public, held in July last year. Clearly, that demonstrates how important this issue is.
My right hon. Friend and I are very much aware of the need to reach decisions soon about future development in Berkshire. The existing structure plans are out of date and do not provide a satisfactory basis for controlling the levels of housing and employment development. The report of the panel that conducted the examination in public has taken longer than we had hoped. However, as soon as its report is received we shall move as quickly as we can to publish any modifications to the county council's proposals. I can assure my hon. Friends that I am anxious that there should he clear and sound planning policies worked out for Berkshire to assist in proper planning control.
Two particular concerns have emerged from this debate: the recent appeals decisions which have been issued allowing housing development in central Berkshire; and the suggestion that allowing development in Berkshire is inconsistent with the Government's policies for regeneration of the inner cities. I will take the appeals first.
My hon. Friends will be aware that we are still within the period when decisions on two appeals could be subject to legal challenge. My comments must take that into account. I should also say that in two appeals — Shipnell's farm and Wicks Green, Binfield — there has not been a final decision. The appeals have been referred back for consideration of agreements on various matters.
I think a main concern is that we have actually dealt with those appeals while the whole question of future housing levels has yet to be decided in the structure plan. Certainly the decisions would be easier if the replacement structure plan had been approved. However, it would he quite unreasonable to freeze decisions on all appeals during the process of reviewing the structure plan.
My right hon. Friend has a duty to consider planning appeals which are made to him, and he must do this having regard to all the relevant considerations——

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Roe: I have a great deal to cover, and I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to complete it. If I have not covered any points, I will issue a follow-up letter.

Mr. MacKay: May I make a brief intervention?

Mrs. Roe: Perhaps later. May I get on now?
As I said, my right hon. Friend must have regard to all the relevant considerations, which will include the fact that there are structure plan proposals. Action may he taken against him in the courts if he unreasonably delays decisions on appeals.
In deciding the appeals in question my right hon. Friend was aware of the local view that there has been excessive development in central Berkshire. I may say, however, that the county council is not proposing that there should be no further housing development in the county. The number of houses involved in these appeal decisions is not, in our view, inconsistent with, or a threat to, the total housing provision proposed by the county council.
The difficulty, which I appreciate, is that the development is being allowed in areas not favoured by the local planning authorities, but my right hon. Friend has had to have regard to the inspector's conclusions about the housing land supply and the suitability of the sites for housing. What I can make clear, which I hope will be helpful to my hon. Friends, is that any houses which are allowed on appeal in the period before a replacement structure plan is approved will count towards whatever total housing provision is decided in the plan and will not be additional to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East mentioned the need for a five-year supply of land. I assure him that the Department of the Environment does not intend an unlimited continuous supply of land for housing. The size of the five-year supply is limited by the total housing provision set in the structure plan.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the north-south divide. It is not as simplistic as north versus south; rather it is the inner cities in the north, with Labour councils, which have problems. Indeed, in the north there are areas of prosperity where the quality of life is similar to that in Berkshire.
On the other question regarding our policies for the inner cities, I recognise my hon. Friend's concern that development allowed in Berkshire may be denying deprived areas the opportunity of attracting that development. There is no convincing evidence that restraint of development in economically attractive areas encourages investment in less attractive ones. The danger is that the investment may be lost to this country altogether. Our policy is aimed at securing new investment in the inner cities, not in preventing investment in areas such as Berkshire. The economic success of Berkshire is important to the country in attracting investment, in encouraging enterprise and in helping to provide the national resources which will enable initiatives to be made to help other areas. We need to be careful not to sacrifice that achievement.
I do not agree that there is a conflict between our policies on inner cities and allowing housing development


elsewhere in the country. We would, of course, hope that developers would make use of sites in inner-city areas where those sites are available. Our registers of unused and underused publicly owned land show that there are some 15,000 acres of such land in London and the south-east: almost half of this land has been assessed as having a medium to high development potential.
We make derelict land grant available to both the public and private sectors to encourage the development of derelict or unused land in urban areas, thus relieving pressure on green field sites. This year, about £3·6 million has been set aside for reclamation in south-east England, including London and East Anglia.
A considerable amount of housebuilding has been taking place in London docklands. By 31 March 1987, 4,250 homes had been completed on sites prepared by the London Docklands Development Corporation, more than half of which were priced at or under £40,000. About 3,350 private homes are currently under construction on Docklands Development Corporation sites, and 2,350 have been built on non-development corporation sites, with about 2,050 under construction. The totals are 6,600 homes completed and 5,400 homes under construction.
The ordnance survey record of land use changes in 1986 shows that, nationally, 46 per cent. of land developed for residential use was previously developed or was vacant land in built-up areas. In the south-east, this proportion was 54 per cent. while in Greater London it reached 86 per cent. These figures illustrate the extent to which housing demand can be met within existing urban areas. I assure my hon. Friends of the strength of the Government's commitment towards the regeneration of the inner cities and making the best use of urban land.
Our achievements in the inner cities, and by way of the use of urban land and re-use of derelict land, will not, by themselves, provide adequate land to meet the housing and other development needs of the existing populations of counties in the south-east; and most projections show that that population will continue to grow. Other land will have to be found, but our firm view is that this can be achieved without serious damage to important environmental interests. This was explained in the regional strategic guidance set out in my right hon. Friend's letter of 19 June 1986 to the chairman of the south-east regional planning authorities, Lord Sandford.

Mr. Redwood: Is my hon. Friend aware that the current rate of development in London is still insufficient to prevent a net migration? Is she aware that she is agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr.

MacKay) and me in saying that more can and should be done in the cities? We are looking for more urgency to get those thousands of acres in inner London back into housing use.

Mrs. Roe: That point has already been noted by my Department and by others involved in housing, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware.
The key to resolving the planning problems faced in central Berkshire is to complete the process of revising the structure plan, and I have already said that we shall do all that we can to speed this up. My hon. Friends may rest assured that all the representations that have been made will be most carefully considered, as will the panel's report and recommendations. When my right hon. Friend's modifications to the plan are published there will, of course, be an opportunity for comment on the modifications.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Appeals are pending on which decisions might have to be made before the structure plan modifications are announced by the Secretary of State, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and I agree with the Minister that it would be unreasonable for everyone concerned if we delayed those appeals. We say that they should not be allowed pending the publication of the structure plan amendments. That is a very different matter, and that is what I want my hon. Friend to take on board.

Mrs. Roe: I have noted my hon. Friend's point carefully, but he will understand my position and the fact that I am unable to comment further.
The matters which have been raised in this debate are important. We fully understand the pressure for development in Berkshire in those areas outside the green belt and the areas of outstanding natural beauty. The essential task now is to set the right levels for future rates of development which are best for all the interests in the county.
The difficulties being experienced in the administration of planning control in central Berkshire have been exacerbated by the length of the structure plan process. The development plan system is undoubtedly too cumbersome. It engages too many resources and is too slow both in the preparation and approval of plans. My right hon. Friend has published proposals in a Green Paper for a thorough revision of the system, and I am pleased to say that the response has shown general agreement that the system needs changing. I am sure that a more responsive development plan system would have gone a long way to avoiding the sort of problems now affecting Berkshire.

Chile

Mr. Pat Wall: I understand that on Monday 13 July Admiral Toribio Merino visited the Foreign Office and met the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar). Admiral Merino—so I understand—flew into London in semi-secrecy via Israel, a route previously taken by Colonel Oliver North. While I have no wish at this stage to add to the controversy that is raging on both sides of the Atlantic about covert activity, I wonder whether these military gentlemen always use the same travel agency.
It is hardly surprising that the Foreign Office has not sought publicity about the visit of a founder member of the Chilean junta, a man who was directly involved in the disappearance of hundreds of civilians whose whereabouts are unknown to this day. He was a Minister who put his warships at the disposal of the junta as prison and torture ships for Chilean civilians. His crimes were on a par with those committed by Klaus Barbie, whose trial was coming to a conclusion when Admiral Merino visited Britain.
A Conservative Government justified the Falklands war on the ground that it was a war for democracy against the Argentinian junta of General Galtieri. That Conservative Government supplied arms to the Argentine dictatorship — arms that were eventually used against British forces in the Falklands. This Government, like previous Conservative Governments, continue to supply arms to the bloodstained dictatorship in Chile. The Government may wish to keep quiet about their relations with Chile, but I believe that the House is entitled to a full account of recent discussions with leading members of the junta; and the nation, too, is entitled to that information.
First, did the discussions with Admiral Merino concern the supply of arms to Chile? I suspect that the answer will be no, but I shall continue to harbour doubts. If arms were not discussed last week, they certainly must have been at the beginning of June, when General Fernando Mathei, commander-in-chief of the Chilean air force, visited Britain. His visit was made in a mad rush, because of the possibility of the return of a Labour Government and the immediate cessation of arms sales to Chile—just as the American Congress is forbidding its Government to sell arms to Chile; just as Felipe Gonzalez, the Spanish Prime Minister, has vetoed further arms sales to Chile; just as President Mitterrand of France is opposed to arms sales to Chile; just as Italy, which has not replaced the ambassador that it withdrew from Santiago in 1973, will not supply arms to Chile.
What is the current state of arms sales to Chile from Britain? Has the destroyer Fife now joined the three other county class destroyers in service with the Chilean navy? When HMS Glamorgan was handed over in Portsmouth last year, it was reported that that gave rise to a brief mutiny among the Chilean sailors. Do the Government have plans to sell military aircraft to Chile to replace its aging fleet of Hawker Hunters?
In 1973 the Chilean military, with the aid of international big business and the CIA, overthrew a democratically elected Socialist Government. Thirty thousand people were slaughtered. Thousands were imprisoned and tortured. Trades unions and workers parties were banned, democratic rights were abolished,

and the most unspeakable atrocities were conducted in the Santiago football stadium. The junta had its friends in the Conservative party and in the press.
The Times, which was nominally "The Thunderer" in those days—not the "Murdoch Murmurer"—welcomed the overthrow of the Allende Government. Chile was to be a capitalist paradise with no workers parties, no meaningful trade unions and a free market economy. Milton Friedman and his Chicago school of gangsters—or rather, economists — were given free reign. The spiritual and economic gurus of Thatcherite economics provided a temporary paradise for sections of big business — especially the multinationals. Within a short time, that led to the virtual bankruptcy of the Chilean economy and appalling hardship, not only for the mass of working people, but for large sections of the middle class.
According to official figures, unemployment in Chile is 18 per cent., but according to most foreign observers it is really more like 30 per cent. In addition, about 20 per cent. of the population obtain seasonal work only. For those in work, the average working day is 12 hours. No national factory regulations or safety conditions exist. Safety equipment such as boots, helmets and ear muffs is not supplied, and workers are forced to pay for such equipment themselves. It is estimated that at least 30 per cent. of the population are undernourished. On one reckoning, it is thought that a healthy diet in Chile for a family of five for a month would cost the equivalent of £120.
Taking an example that was featured in the national press of one workers' district in Santiago, the average family income is £29 a month, but only fewer than one quarter of the people there have any kind of job. There are also reports of many workers' districts and shanty towns around the major towns where, in order to survive, communal kitchens are organised to ensure that the population manage to have at least one meal a day. That does not include weekends, when most families exist on only tea and biscuits. One in three children in Chile are anaemic due to the poor diet, yet 30 per cent. of doctors are unemployed.
As a result of the continuing repression and worsening living standards, there has been an upsurge of open opposition to the dictatorship of the junta in the past few years. Strikes by re-emerging trade unions have multiplied, as have demonstrations in all the major urban areas. Even during the Pope's visit to Chile the vast religious rallies became anti-junta events, with continual chants of "Its going to fall," and pitched battles between youth and the police. Many hon. Members will have seen the brutality and the use of tear gas by the police during the Pope's visit. Large sections of the middle class now openly defy the regime in Chile — including sections of that class that helped to bring Pinochet to power in 1973. Teachers and doctors have held strikes, and bus owners and lorry drivers who supported Pinochet in 1973 have held demonstrations against the regime.
As ever, the answer from the junta has been yet more cruelty and repression. Hugo Pavez, a defence lawyer representing political prisoners in Santiago central goal, recently reported:
Prisoners have been subjected not only to electricity, simulated shootings and being semi-drowned in excrement, but in at least one case a prisoner was hung up for days and beaten until his nose and ears burst.


There have been cases of rats being put inside prisoners' clothing and in one case inside a prisoner's mouth.
It is no wonder that reports in the serious Western press estimate that 85 per cent. of the population oppose the idea of General Pinochet standing as sole candidate for president in 1989. Admiral Merino and General Matthei, both of whom visited Britain this year, have called for Pinochet to stand down to be replaced by a right of centre civilian candidate, and that view has been echoed by police chief Rodolfo Stange, who has also visited Europe recently. Was the issue of Pinochet's replacement raised in discussions at the Foreign Office with Admiral Merino and/or General Matthei? The constant visits of senior members of the junta to Western capitals seems to imply that they are seeking a way to elbow Pinochet aside as the most openly hated representative of the junta and thus to head off the growing prospect of the regime being overthrown — a partial liberalisation of the regime to ensure business as usual for the multinational companies.
The Chilean people can have no illusions that reformed generals or Christian Democratic politicians who supported the junta in 1973 have any real desire to reintroduce genuine elections and democratic rights in Chile. A liberalised regime might temporarily suspend the worst of the repression, but it can never solve the problems of hunger, unemployment and exploitation for the mass of the people of Chile. I believe that the lessons of the past 14 years have been learnt and that the re-emerging workers' movement will pull behind it the majority of those in the middle layers of society, including about half a million home owners who face the prospect of imminent bankruptcy as a result of debts to the banks totalling U$1·5 billion. In my view, it was not that the Allende Government went too far too quickly but that it did not go far enough quickly enough. For our part, we must say that there will be no negotiations with members of the Chilean junta and no arms sales to that regime.
For the past 14 years, I have had the honour to be president of the Bradford trades council. I describe it as an honour because my many well-known predecessors played such a prominent role in the development of the labour and trade union movements in my city. Following the military coup in Chile 14 years ago, the city of Bradford was host to more than 100 refugees from Chile. We found food, clothing and shelter for them. We provided English lessons and tried to provide further education for those who wanted it and could benefit from it. They were sheltered in people's houses until permanent accommodation could be found and, despite the unemployment situation in Bradford, which is not new, we managed to find jobs for most of them.
For a temporary period, my family took in a young Chilean who had had bitter experiences crossing the mountains into Argentina and not over-pleasant experiences in Cuba before coming to Britain. He was severely shocked and in poor health. In my household, he had to share a small bedroom with my two young sons. I still recall vividly a postcard from Santiago arriving one morning. On one side was a picture of the football stadium with its dreadful memories. On the other side was a single word in Spanish — "Remember". I still recall the chill that that card brought to my household.
We shall indeed remember. We shall remember all the refugees who came to Britain, the 30,000 people who were

slaughtered in Chile, as well as those who have been imprisoned and tortured and those who have been attacked and assaulted by the police and security forces in Chile. For 14 years, Chile has been a stain on the name of humanity. I believe that I speak for all Opposition Members when I say that I believe that in the near future there will be a new Chile—a democratic, Socialist Chile—which will not use torture and repression as the junta has but which will be a gentle, co-operative and humane society.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) on obtaining this debate and on the way in which he has spoken of the awfulness of life in Chile for so many people.
I wish to put some fairly direct questions to the Government about their attitude to the Government of General Pinochet. It must be stated time and again that that Government, with whom the British Government are apparently happy to do business, is headed by a murderer. He murdered Salvador Allende in cold blood and he has murdered thousands more since then. The teeming prisons and refugee camps and the appalling poverty of the slum areas of Santiago, Valparaiso and other cities are testimony to the type of Government that he operates. It is a Government of the multinational companies, a Government of repression and of murder. [Interruption.] The Minister seems to find that amusing. I find it more than ever disgusting that the British Government should have been the major arms supplier for General Pinochet and his junta ever since arms sales were resumed in 1980, having rightly been banned by the Labour Government from the moment of their election in 1974.
It should be remembered, too, that it was British arms sold to Chile in the past which were used to bomb and strife the Moneda palace and to murder the elected president in 1973. The Labour Government instituted a refugee settlement programme and a ban on arms sales and recalled the British ambassador from Santiago. Since the Tories came to power in 1979, arms sales have been resumed and close military contacts have been established. The ambassador is back in Santiago and everything is supposed to be normal between the British Government and the Pinochet Government.
Nevertheless, there are tensions in the Foreign Office about this. I refer to a document which, happily, was leaked from the Foreign Office in November 1984 and in which Foreign Office officials expressed their horror at the renewal of the state of siege in Chile, the indiscriminate arrests and the activities of the police in gunning down students protesting against the denial of civil liberties and the loss of democracy. Foreign Office officials asked the Government to consider a policy of discouraging commercial loans to Chile by British banks and reducing Export Credits Guarantee Department loans. It is ironic that the Government are not prepared to give such loans to Nicaragua but are apparently happy to provide them for the Pinochet Government whose indebtedness to the world is legion.
The document goes on to suggest that perhaps the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank could be leaned on so as not to give any further loans to the Government of Chile. It suggests that the Fairey Engineering contract for a nuclear research project in


Chile be stopped. It goes on to question whether other trade sanctions could be introduced. There is then a mind-chilling list of arms that we know that the Chilean junta is after and in many cases has already received from the British Government. Blowpipe anti-aircraft missiles have been made available. Sea Cat missiles have apparently been offered. There is a whole series of weaponry that can only be described as suitable for internal repression. I use those words carefully and advisedly because in meetings I have had with Foreign Office Ministers over the years they have always assured me that the policy of the sale of arms to other countries is strictly dictated by the needs of the national defence of that country and not of internal repression.
I raise two matters. First, where is the external threat to the Government of Chile? Is Argentina about to climb the Andes and invade? Is Peru about to invade? Is Bolivia about to form a navy and sail down the coast and invade? Is there any serious external threat to Chile? Everyone in the Foreign Office knows perfectly well that the answer to that is an emphatic no. They also know that any arms that are sold to the Government of Chile can be used for two purposes. Infra-red weaponry that can be used for night fighting is used for internal repression. Tanks and armoured cars are used for internal repression and for the transport of troops around Chile. People in the Foreign Office know that that equipment is on sale to Chile for its benefit and that those items are used.
Secondly, the British Government's south Atlantic policy is closely linked with the wishes of General Pinochet. There is clear evidence that, during the Falklands war, bases in Chile were used as a back-up and refuelling resource for British troops on their way back and forth to the Falklands and also for the Sea King helicopters to refuel near Punta Arenas. There is also, apparently, a training facility available to British troops in the south Atlantic on Chile. Additionally, there is the constant calling of British vessels at Chilean harbours. Either those are fraternal visits or they are a political gesture to bolster the Government of General Pinochet.
In a recent visit to Chile by the Chile Committee for Human Rights, Andy Atkins, its secretary, reported that he was on a hill above Valparaiso and that when he looked down at that beautiful harbour he saw a British warship. An old man came out of his hut and said, "Which side are your Government on?" That is the question. Which side are the British Government on? It is clear to me, and certainly to Opposition Members, that the British Government are on the side of General Pinochet. They are on the side of repression. They are on the side of the murderers of people in Chile and of the murderers of the Chilean democratically elected Government.
Recently we have seen examples of just how evil is the repression in Chile. There was the example of the 12 people murdered in raids carried out by the Chilean secret police in an operation known as "operation Albania". Instead of reading those 12 names to the House, I will put them down in an early-day motion so that they will at least be commemorated in the House, as people who were killed by the secret police of the Government of General Pinochet because they were deemed to be opposed to that Government. They were not shot down in a gun battle, as the press reported at the time; they were searched out and assassinated by the secret police. That happened on the nights of 15 and 16 June in the districts of San Miguel, Nunoa and Conchali in Santiago. Many other people have

been murdered in Chile. Two years ago a person was burnt to death. Many people are in political prisons, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North referred to. There is, quite simply, the denial of political rights.
In previous debates on Chile—and I have taken part in all of them we have had since 1983 — the British Government have continually pleaded with hon. Members that "constructive dialogue" is the thing, that if only the Government were allowed to talk to General Pinochet arid keep the ambassador there they could ensure that democracy returns in some shape or form. I do not call an election where there is just one candidate, General Pinochet, a democratic election, especially when voters go to the ballot boxes looking down the barrel of a gun. I call that a plebiscite of 1938 Austrian dimensions. It is an election to give a legitimacy to the Fascism that already exists in Chile. That is all the election will achieve.
Other forces in Chile are working hard to bring back the achievements of the Popular Unity Government arid to bring back Socialism. There is the new Left front, the Unidad Izquierda. I would like to know whether the existing or the new British ambassador will meet that body. It is a very important organisation that represents all the social forces in Chile. It is extremely important that the British ambassador does meet its representatives. It is also important, when the new British ambassador arrives shortly, that he takes up the case of Clodomiro Alineyda, the former Foreign Minister in the Popular Unity Government, who voluntarily returned to Chile. There has since been a court case against him. He said, "Well, if democracy is free and alive in Chile and if there is a democratic legal system, I present myself to it". He has now been slapped in irons in internal exile. He must be freed and the British Government must demand his freedom from internal exile. When the Minister replies, I hope he will tell us that that is being done.
The Minister is obviously having some difficulty listening to what I am saying. I put a couple of other questions to him. I mentioned the policy of arms sales to Chile. That is a key to so much of what has been said arid so much of what is at the heart of British policy on Chile. Arms sales were resumed in 1980. With the exception of the non-sale of the rest of the Centaur half-track anti-personnel vehicles, so far as we know all other requests for military equipment by the Government of General Pinochet have been met. We understand that training facilities have been offered. We understand that a number of high level delegations, in addition to the one that my hon. Friend mentioned about Admiral Merino, have taken place. Advice has been given and equipment is being sent to Chile.
Recently, Pye Telecommunications was authorised to send equipment to Chile that was used for crowd control during the Pope's visit. Crowd control in this country might seem a fairly innocent activity, but in the case of Chile it certainly is not. Crowd control takes on a wholly different meaning there.
I would like to know what future arms sales are envisaged and what the British Government's foreign policy is towards Chile. I would like categorically on the record that the British Government intend to end all relations with the Government of General Pinochet, all military contact and particularly all facilities that are used as part of the Falklands operation of the British Government. However, I very much doubt that we shall hear that this morning. I have it on very good authority


from people in Chile that a British diesel-powered submarine, the Onyx, recently completed a tour of duty in the Falkland Islands. After it completed its tour of duty it apparently stopped off somewhere and was tarted up — painted, cleaned up and the brass polished. More food was taken on board to entertain people. Lo and behold, it called at Valparaiso on a sales visit. Is it the policy of this Government to sell every warship and submarine that they possibly can, in addition to the county class destroyers that have already been sold, to the Government of General Pinochet? The people of this country are entitled to know. It is not good enough for the British Government to claim that they support democracy and a return to democratic Government in Chile or that they are working with other United Nations countries in supporting resolutions calling for an end to internal repression in Chile while at the same time they are selling arms to Chile. There is a direct correlation between the British Government's receipt of support from General Pinochet during the Falklands war and the British Government's subsequent voting record at the United Nations in either abstaining or voting against resolutions condemning violations of human rights in Chile.
The Government claim that constructive dialogue is the order of the day and that that will bring change in Chile. Since 1973, thousands have died and been murdered for their beliefs because they stood up for their people and their communities, because they tried to organise fellow workers against starvation wages, because they tried to organise fellow shanty dwellers against the misery of shanty towns. They have been done down by the Chilean army and secret police force. Day and night, the secret police force goes on raids throughout the major towns, and goes in search of the Manuel Rodriguez Patriotic Front, and tries to destroy all opposition.
Is it really the function of the British Government, supposedly representing a democracy, to sell arms that can be used to take part in these obscene murders? Should we not say, "No, we will not sell arms to Chile. We will give no trade, aid or loans to Chile, so long as the murderer Pinochet remains in office and the military dictatorship rules the country and this blot on civilisation exists?"
That should be the response that we get from the British Government. I would love to hear it today, although I suspect that I shall wait in vain. I suspect that it will be not the mealy-mouthed hypocrisy of Western European Governments that brings freedom to the people of Chile, but the people themselves in their struggle. Unfortunately, they are being killed by British arms as they struggle for freedom, Socialism and democracy.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Mellor): I am delighted, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see you in the Chair. It has given great pleasure to your many friends in the House that you have taken on this role, a role which, I am sure you are aware, could only have been afforded to you because of the deep respect in which you are held on both sides of the Chamber. I wish you a long and happy tenure of office.
I am perfectly happy to explain once again the Government's policy and position on Chile. It is not just the representatives of a particular section of the Labour party who have spoken today who are concerned about

continuing human rights violations in Chile and about the slow progress towards an orderly and peaceful transition to democracy. It is in that spirit that I respond to the debate. In Chile, the absence of political dialogue between the Government and the democratic opposition, the seeming inability of the judiciary in many cases to act independently, and the repression of political freedoms are all matters of common concern. I accept that serious charges can be made against the Chilean Government. It is no part of my task or function to explain away any of those points.
However, much if not all of what the hon. Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) have said about the Chilean regime applies also to a number of other regimes.

Mr. Corbyn: We are talking about Chile.

Mr. Mellor: I am quite aware that we are talking about Chile. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that he can determine the substance of the debate. I shall respect him and the hon. Member for Bradford, North a great deal more when they start pressing for Adjournment debates about incidents such as that which occurred last November when unarmed East Germans were shot down trying to cross the Berlin wall. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is not interested in anything other than his personal views, but let me enlighten him on one matter. He should realise how the exercise of a selective conscience is viewed on the Government Benches. He may say that this debate is about the sale of arms, but his speech called for the cessation of all trading relations, not just arms trading with Chile. If we were to conduct our foreign relations on that basis, an almost unending list of countries would not measure up to our concept of democracy and we could not deal with them. However, there is a yawning chasm of unreason between the particular sect of the Labour party that we see on the Opposition Benches today and the rest of us. I do not imagine that even his Front Bench would agree with most of the points that the hon. Gentleman made today.
I know that what I have said is warmly supported by my hon. Friends. As has been said, we have had normal diplomatic relations with Chile since 1980. This enables us to express concerns to the Chilean Government at the highest levels — concerns which are shared widely throughout the British public — about human rights, freedom, justice and democracy. During the past 12 months, for example, our ambassador in. Santiago has made a series of representations on these important matters to members of the ruling junta, to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the Minister of the Interior and others, while Ministers and senior officials here in London have made comparable representations whenever opportunity has offered.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs spoke last February in forthright terms about human rights to Chile's ambassador to the United Nations, Sr. Daza, on the occasion of Sr. Daza's visit to London. Earlier this month, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs expressed our concerns very frankly to Admiral Merino, the Navy member of the ruling junta, during his private visit to the United Kingdom. The same opportunity was taken to discuss with Admiral Merino political, social and


economic developments in Chile. We also have frequent and extensive contact with the democratic opposition in Chile, and with the leading human rights organisations. Such contacts would simply not have been possible in the absence of normal diplomatic relations.
We have also been able to make our views and concerns known in other ways, such as through our votes on resolutions about Chile at the General Assembly of the United Nations. We supported a resolution critical of Chile's human rights accord at the last General Assembly. Then in March this year, at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, we joined a consensus resolution again criticising the Chilean Government's continuing poor record. Our concerns are shared by our EC partners and, as the Twelve, we have made a number of demarches and statements, both public and private, expressing concern about particular, and general, human rights abuses and about the need for an early, orderly and peaceful return to democracy in Chile.
A great deal has been made of defence links and arms sales. Our policy on defence sales and on continued contact between United Kingdom defence personnel and representatives of the Chilean armed forces has been criticised by some hon. Members today. Our defence relations with Chile are a normal part of our normal diplomatic relations with that country. There is nothing unusual in these contacts. They reflect the long connection between our two countries' armed forces, especially between our navies and our air forces. It is good that these links should he maintained, and that the Chileans should be exposed to our thinking and to the role of the British armed forces. As to defence sales, our policy worldwide is sensitive to concerns about human rights. We take great care not to approve the sale to Chile of items which, in our judgment. are likely to be used for internal repression. I must emphasise that we consider every single application for arms sales to Chile and we have refused many applications. Our policy is a responsible one and the way that we manage it in no way condones human rights abuses in Chile.
As to the sale of ships to the Chilean navy, these are manifestly for external defence and cannot reasonably be regarded as instruments of internal repression. There is no evidence whatsoever of the use of former Royal Navy ships in Chile as torture centres. I am not able to comment on, and in no way should be seen to be confirming, anything that the hon. Member for Islington, North said about one of our submarines. The idea that he should regard a submarine as an instrument of internal repression is a sign of how far from common sense he has strayed. It is a shame to spoil a good case about the human rights record in Chile, about which all of us can agree, by mounting on to it such lurid and unsustainable allegations of the kind raised by both the hon. Member for Bradford, North and the hon. Member for Islington, North. In relation to tanks and armoured cars, I can state that no such items supplied by Her Majesty's Government are in service in Chile. The hon. Member for Islington, North referred to a matter that occurred some time ago and a half-track vehicle which has been withdrawn.
The key to the future of Chile must surely be its transition back to democracy. We must remember that Chile has a long history of democracy and we are continuallly reminded in the many contacts that we have with democratic Chileans of the role played by Britain in their independence in the 1820s and the close family,

cultural and commercial ties that we have had during that long democratic history. I make no bones about it, the current Chilean Government is anomalous. We in this House and the vast majority of the British and Chilean people want to see democracy peacefully restored in Chile. We continue to do all that we can to urge the Chilean Government to take adequate steps to bring that about.
We have all been disappointed at the lack of progress in the past. However, there have been some positive signs in recent months. The long-promised laws on political parties and on electoral registration were promulgated earlier this year. They provide some sign that the Government are serious in their commitment to the political development, albeit limited, envisaged by the 1980 constitution. We very much hope that those measures will lead to the restoration of normal democratic political activity in Chile. In the meantime, we continue to encourage the democratic opposition to try to develop their unity and to put forward credible long-term policies.
Very properly, Opposition Members raised the matter of contacts with Opposition politicians and they were not parts of the speeches with which I disgreed. We have supported, with our European Community partners, the moderate Opposition's national accord. We regularly fund United Kingdom visits of opposition leaders from across the democratic spectrum. Our embassy maintains regular contact with opposition leaders and that policy will continue.
We have also continued to sponsor visits to the United Kingdom by a broad section of politicians including Sr. Molina the co-ordinator of the 1985 national accord, Sr. Huepe of the Christian Democrats and several important journalists, including the editor-in-chief of the new independent newspaper. Those visitors receive vital encouragement from a wide range of democratic opinion in Britain.
It is also fair to say that not all is doom and gloom in Chile. The points made about poverty and the Chilean economy are also tragically common throughout the south American continent. I visited South America last September and toured countries under a variety of democratic rule including Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador and Colombia. Peru and Bolivia are democracies and can be subject to none of the criticisms advanced against Chile. However, there is real poverty, need and want in those countries and all of the vital indicators about welfare do not point where those Governments would like them to point. The Chilean Government are not alone in lacing economic difficulties in recent years.
To give credit where it is due, the Chilean economy is now being responsibly managed for the ultimate benefit of all Chileans. All major financial institutions agree with that. Serious mistakes caused the explosive boom in the early 1980s. However, they have been corrected. Gross domestic product growth in 1986 was more than 5 per cent., unemployment has been reduced to less than 9 per cent. and there are positive trends in the economy. I do not say that as an apologist for Pinochet, but to ensure a balance and objectivity, although I appreciate that those are alien concepts to the hon. Members for Islington, North and for Bradford, North. — [Interruption] The dissent that greets my comment was not the kind of dissent that greeted the candidature of the hon. Member for Bradford, North in years past.
The next two years are likely to be crucial for the future of Chile. Under the 1980 constitution, a presidential


plebiscite is to be held by March 1989 at the latest, followed by congressional elections a year later. We shall be watching the evolution of those events in Chile with much interest.

Sporting Events (Safety)

Mr. Neil Thorne: Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friends are already aware of my interest in the subject of safety at sporting events because of my contributions on Third Reading of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987. We all know that the Government have generated a considerable effort in encouraging independence of mind. The population should be encouraged to stand on their own feet and think for themselves. The Government have spent much effort on encouraging those attributes in recent years, and the benefits of that encouragement are to be found through the considerable improvements in the economy.
At the same time, the Government have been conscious of the need to protect the weak, and in that regard to ensure that people who venture into areas that are not always familiar to them are adequately provided for. We have noticed that while removing the population from the nanny society — catering for the individual from the cradle to the grave—the Government have nevertheless ensured that the population are not preyed upon by people who would take advantage of them. In that regard I refer to those who, in the past, have taken advantage of people on the doorstep. For example, doorstep salesmen have been curbed and the Government have ensured that in future people will have plenty of opportunity to ensure that they are not subject to onerous conditions that have been hastily entered into.
In looking after vulnerable sections of the community it is clear that central Government and local government will be called upon to provide protection in areas which the population visit on rare occasions. For example, regulations have been laid down that set out what is required of a cinema exhibitor. Requirements of this sort have been set out in a number of Acts. Legislation has improved the design and construction of buildings, and fire and planning requirements are improved every year. The disabled are protected in a major way, and the provisions that attach to new building require consultation with fire departments to ensure that use is made of the latest knowledge and experience. If there have been any recent catastrophes, care is taken to incorporate in new buildings the lessons that have been learnt. This means that any commercial building must meet certain provisions and requirements.
Licences are required for the exhibition of films under the Cinemas Act 1985. Section 1 states:
no premises shall be used for a film exhibition unless they are licensed for the purpose under this section.
Subsection (2) provides:
A licensing authority may grant a licence under this section to such a person as they think fit to use any premises specified in the licence for the purpose of film exhibitions on such terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as, subject to regulations under section 4 below, they may determine.
It is clear that that lays the onus upon the local authority, which is subject to the provisions that are set out in section 3. Subsection (1) states:
An applicant for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence shall give to—

(a) the licensing authority,
(b) the fire authority, and
(c) the chief officer of police,

not less than 28 days' notice of his intention to make the application.


Subsection (2) states:
The licensing authority may in such cases as they think fit, after consulting with the fire authority and the chief officer of police, grant an application for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence notwithstanding the fact that the applicant has failed to give notice in accordance with subsection (1) above.
Subsection (3) adds:
In considering any application for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence, the licensing authority shall have regard to any observations submitted to them by the fire authority or by the chief officer of police.
That is the important provision. The licensing authority is required to listen to what a fire officer and a police officer have to say. It cannot issue a licence without having taken into account the observations of those officers. Whether it listens to what it is told remains to be seen, but it is required to take their observations into account.
There are certain provisions that allow for exemptions. If a film is exhibited in a club that requires membership before members of the public are allowed to attend, the provisions to which I have referred do not apply unless the club forms part of a building that is licensed for use by the general public. If, for example, on the ground floor of the premises there is a public cinema that is in use and in the basement a private cinema club is opened, the club would be bound by the provisions of the 1985 Act. If the club were in separate premises and entirely private, the provisions would not apply.
The law is different for discos. If a disco on a ground floor, for example, is licensed and there is a basement operation, the advantages of the regulations do not apply.
There is a need for a greater measure of safety at sporting events. I think that that is accepted generally by all responsible bodies. For example, the Jockey Club has laid down rules carefully and it does not allow racing to commence unless there is adequate provision for the safety of the participants and the general public. However, that is not the case everywhere. It came as something of a surprise to me to learn that the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive for first-aid applies only to employees and does not extend to facilities for the general public. The employer in a place of sport must comply with the regulations when making provision for his employees, but, where other persons are regularly on the premises, the employer may extend the facilities to them, provided that the employees are not adversely affected. The employer must therefore examine carefully the element of risk in the provision of both equipment and personnel.
We all appreciate that safety is of paramount importance, and the announcement today of the report on the Zeebrugge disaster highlights the issue. Many people lost their lives in a very short time in that disaster, which has concentrated our minds upon it. I am sure that the regulations will be tightened to make such catastrophes less likely in the future. However, I believe that we have many other opportunities to improve safety arrangements, and that we should introduce them without waiting for major disasters.
Several fires have taken place at football stadia, and that, too, has concentrated the minds of the authorities on using fully the facilities which have been made available under various Acts of Parliament, but which have not previously been used to the full. The Popplewell report is an important contribution: it makes absolutely clear the need to improve existing conditions in first-aid rooms, including equipment, number of personnel and the

provision of in situ ambulances when they are required, to make adequate provision for those likely to be affected in both indoor and outdoor activities.
The Home Office in the past has not been as demanding as it might have been. As recently as March this year, it was saying:
Thus, the local 'certificating' authority determines the terms and conditions of the safety certificate including whether or not it should include a condition relating to first-aid facilities. In our experience safety certificates do contain such conditions. Even so, in July 1985 we drew … attention … to Recommendation 8 of the Popplewell Inquiry Interim Report, specifically asking them to consider inclusion of a condition within safety certificates for adequate first-aid facilities.
In its "Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds", the Home Office reminded ground management of its responsibilities to provide such facilities for visitors and staff. However, it was not considered necessary to impose such a requirement on the licensing authority as a duty, and that is where the matter seems to go wrong. Although the Home Office has offered to suggest to the local authorities that they should consider that point in granting licences for indoor sporting entertainments in general, it does not appear to consider it a high enough priority to put further pressure on the authorities to take it into account. If it is not taken into account, the attitude of the officials is likely to be more low-key.
I am not saying that that is the case throughout local government. In many cases officials take such matters very seriously and try to require a very high standard. However, the public should not he exposed to hit-and-miss arrangements. They should be able to expect a uniform standard of safety. It is not for the man in the street to find out whether the fire and first-aid precautions are to his liking at sporting events or in clubs. I am thinking in particular of the Queensway ice rink, a private club that does not have to comply with any licensing regulations. Furthermore, it does not come under the Health and Safety Executive. Adequate provision is made for the members of the staff, but club members are not covered by those provisions. I seriously question whether they understand that fact.
The 1966 Act states that the various venues for exhibition purposes — for example, the Wembley conference centre and the Kensington design centre — are not necessarily covered by the licensing authorities. However, those venues should be carefully monitored. We must ensure that the necessary standards are applied.
Paragraph 3.99 of the Popplewell report says:
The value of the presence of the St. John's Ambulance at a sports ground cannot be over-estimated. If it be the case that a first-aid room is either not provided or inadequately provided then that should be remedied, and I recommend that, where practicable, that should be done. I recommend that on grounds which are designated it should be a term of the safety certificate.
That is a significant contribution to the debate.
Adequate first-aid provision is needed. My hon. Friend the Minister will remember that there has been more than one accident in the House when first-aid has been of great importance. I remember being in the Chamber when one of my hon. Friend's Welsh ministerial colleagues collapsed at the place where my hon. Friend is now sitting. First-aid was of the greatest importance. We are lucky to have first-aiders as members of the staff, and we have revised our


arrangements to ensure that the necessary equipment and facilities can easily be reached. We have learnt the lessons of that occasion.
Provision must be made for the public. St. John Ambulance is not the only organisation that provides such cover. The Red Cross also provides it. That cover is provided on a voluntary basis. The Government are anxious that the voluntary sector should play its full part. Therefore, we must ensure that adequate facilities are made available so that sufficient volunteers are encouraged to come forward. If such provision is not made, the voluntary system will collapse. That is why the existing law and regulations should be used to the utmost benefit to guarantee volunteers the facilities that they need to continue to participate. If there are no adequate rooms for equipment to be kept in, and if refreshment allowances are not forthcomong, one can hardly expect organisations such as St. John Ambulance to subsidise sporting events. If my hon. Friend's Department were to be more insistent in its demands that local authorities incorporate such provision in their licensing considerations — before anyone embarks upon an event he or she will wish to inquire what the likely cost will be — that would be taken into account in planning.
As far as I can make out at the moment, a sporting event is planned, and if there is no specific reference to the necessity to provide for safety, it is slipped in at the last moment. I understand that cricket authorities have no provision within their funds for first-aid payments. A football trust fund helps with expenses, but I understand that no fewer than five members of St. John Ambulance must be on duty at any one time to qualify for the provision. The amount that they are paid to defray expenses, which of course must cover their travelling expenses and refreshment allowances, is often completely and utterly inadequate. In the circumstances, often as little as £100 is allocated for a five-day cricket test match, which is as little as £20 a day to finance the travelling expenses and refreshment allowances of five people. That is totally and utterly inadequate. If the Home Office were to insist that adequate provision be made during the licensing, it would properly be provided for.
Section 42 of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987 amended schedule 12 to the London Government Act 1963, paragraph 3A(1) of which reads:
no premises in a London borough or the City of London shall be used for any entertainment … to which the public are invited as spectators … except under … the terms of a licence granted … by the Council.
A council should specify the terms and conditions under which a licence is issued. By section 31 the Secretary of State may make regulations for the issue of safety certificates for sports grounds and, has a duty to consult such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him to be requisite. The legislation should specify that such bodies should be qualified. It is the duty of the local authority to enforce and inspect. The local authority must act in accordance with such guidance as the Secretary of State may give. That is the foundation on which it should be done.
I remind my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that, prior to the Bradford football club fire, the provision of suitable accommodation by professional football clubs was totally inadequate. The Bradford football club fire

caused a complete rethinking of the subject. The initiative to improve facilities in London has been taken by St. John Ambulance. We must thank the people concerned, particularly Commander Derek Fenton, who has been an important influence in drawing our attention to the need for adequate provision.
We must accept and acknowledge that a little pre-planning could save a vast amount of trouble at a later date. We should give great care and consideration to what the St. John Ambulance and other interested bodies advise on this, and we should urge the Secretary of State to use the full powers at his command to implement the type of safety standards that the public has the right to expect.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) for giving me this opportunity to explain the method by which Parliament and the Government try to ensure the safety of those who attend spectator sports. I shall outline in general terms the statutory framework governing safety at sports grounds and shall respond to the points that my hon. Friend made so clearly.
Until this year the relevant legislation was contained in the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975. The catalyst for that legislation was the disaster at Ibrox park in 1971 in which 66 people died. Following that disaster a committee of inquiry was set up under Lord Wheatley. As a result of the recommendations contained in the committee's report, this House passed the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975. It might be helpful if I described the nature of the 1975 legislation. Its main feature was the creation of the concept of "designated stadia". They were a class of sports ground that was required to have a safety certificate. Perhaps that statement requires some amplification. The stadia that were liable to have a safety certificate were those that provided spectator accommodation for more than 10,000 persons in stadia form including covered accommodation.
The power of designation was given to the Secretary of State. The power to grant the safety certificate was conferred on the local authority, which had a duty to ensure the reasonable safety of spectators. It did that by the power to impose conditions through the safety certificate. Its obligation and power was to impose such requirements as were necessary or expedient to ensure the safety of spectators. Thus, the essential provision of the 1975 Act was the creation of the designated stadia to which the safety certificate must apply.
The 1975 Act contains another significant power — the power given to the local authorities to apply to a court for a prohibition order. A court could make such an order to prohibit or restrict the admission of spectators to grounds if there was a serious risk to the spectators. That power of prohibition was not confined to the designated stadia but applied to all grounds.
As a result of the 1985 tragedy at Bradford, Parliament looked again at the safety of sports grounds. The Bradford disaster focused public attention on the need to take further positive steps to ensure spectator safety. The first and most obvious consequence of the fire was a substantial extension of designation status. Designation status was extended to a greatly increased number of grounds. Prior to the disaster designation status had been extended to soccer clubs in divisions one and two of the Football League, to several international football stadia, including


Wembley, Twickenham, Cardiff and Murrayfield, and to the Premier League in Scotland. As a result of the Bradford fire the remaining clubs in the Football League were designated as and from August 1985, as were Rugby League clubs having spectator accommodation for more than 10,000 people. That meant that an additional 58 grounds were designated under the 1975 Act. That was the first consequence of the Bradford fire.
Of later consequence was perhaps the establishment of the committee of inquiry to which my hon. Friend has referred, the inquiry under Mr. Justice Popplewell, whose report was published in January 1986. It was followed by a consultative document published in the summer of 1986, which led directly to the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987, which we passed in May.
The 1987 Act made five major changes in the law which governs the safety of sports grounds. First, it required local authorities to carry out annual inspections of sports grounds that are designated under the Act. In the 1975 Act local authorities were not under a statutory duty to carry out periodic inspections, although the majority of them did so.
The second change was the introduction of the concept of the regulated stand. A regulated stand is a covered stand providing accommodation for 500 or more persons in grounds which are not designated grounds. A regulated stand requires a safety certificate. We believe that this requirement will affect 400 or so sports grounds. The issue and contents of the safety certificates will be similar to those required for designated grounds. The safety certificates will be wider in scope than mere fire safety and will extend to structural safety. The requirement will extend well beyond football clubs into race courses, dog tracks, motor racing tracks and, for example, Wimbledon. Therefore, the creation of the regulated stand with the safety certificate requirement will make a great improvement in safety.
The third change relates to the issue of the prohibition notice. Under the 1975 Act the power to issue a prohibition notice was granted to the courts on the application of the local authority. As a result of the 1987 Act the power to issue a prohibition notice has been granted to the local authorities, although there is a right of appeal to the courts. Perhaps it is right to emphasise that although there is a right of appeal to the courts the effect of the appeal is not to suspend the efficacy of the prohibition notice. One does not suspend it simply by applying for an appeal; it remains in force until the appeal is determined.
The fourth major change removes what was always an artificial distinction between grounds and stadia. Now, the concept that governs legislation in this area is not one of stadia, but one of grounds. The legislation applies to grounds, not to stadia, as was previously the case.
Finally—I shall return to this matter to answer my hon. Friend's comments—licences will now be required for a whole range of indoor sporting events. However, the legislation is drafted in such a way as to ensure that it does not catch premises where the sporting event is only ancillary to the use to which the premises are put. For example, a pub in which there is a darts match will not be required to have an indoor sporting licence of the sort contemplated under the 1987 Act.
The primary legislation was the 1975 Act, but that has now been modified in at least five major respects by the 1987 Act, which now governs legislation in this area. The

1987 Act received Royal Assent on 15 May. It is our intention that most, if not all, of the major provisions of that Act will be brought into effect in 1988.
I have spoken of the statutory changes, but there are at least two other changes that I should mention. There has been an extension in the number of designated grounds. I have already said that, as from August 1985, almost all soccer clubs in the Football League were designated, as were the main Rugby League clubs. The Popplewell inquiry recommended the extension of designated status to soccer, Rugby League, Rugby Union and cricket grounds. That proposal was accepted. As a result,:in England and Wales, a further 52 sports grounds were designated with effect from 23 August 1986. From 1 October 1986, 14 clubs in the Scottish Football League were also designated. At the moment some 200 grounds are the subject of designation.
Another consequence and change brought about by the Popplewell inquiry was the publication of a green guide. Previously there was a guide in existence, but following the Popplewell recommendations and the report of a working party a further green guide has been published. It is a voluntary guide as to the safety standards and measures that can be adopted. It is guidance both for the management and operators of the relevant ground and for the local authorities.
In the course of his helpful speech my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South raised two issues with which I wish to deal. The first was the provision of medical care at sporting events and the second — an issue he also raised in May on Third Reading of the 1987 Act — related to the provision of safety at private functions as opposed to public functions. My hon. Friend paid great tribute to St. John Ambulance and the other voluntary services that provide emergency medical care. I echo and support my hon. Friend's remarks. In my constituency and in the county of Lincolnshire we have considerable cause to be grateful to the St. John Ambulance, the Red Cross and other such bodies. I entirely welcome what my hon. Friend said about those organisations. They provide essential medical care at sporting events and elsewhere.
The legal position is as follows: as regards sporting events, the local authorities are solely in charge of the imposition of terms and conditions that can be made the terms and conditions of the safety certificate. It is for the local authority to determine the extent to which it wishes to insist on the provision of emergency medical care as a term of the safety certificate.
Most safety certificates, hitherto granted, that dealt with sporting events made provision for first aid. I believe that that will continue. I shall consider whether it is desirable to write to local authorities drawing specific attention to the fact that it is within their jurisdiction and competence to impose such a condition. My present feeling is that because that practice is so widespread it is probably not necessary to contact the local authorities, but I will consider it.
A different position applies to indoor sporting events because there the changes are substantial. I shall consider whether, when we issue a circular to the local authorities, it would be desirable to draw their attention to the fact that when they license an indoor sporting function or the premises they have a power to require the provision of first aid or similar facilities.
Another point, which my hon. Friend raised more directly in the debate on the Third Reading of the 1987


Act, although it also arose in today's debate, was the distinction between public events and private events. My hon. Friend is naturally anxious about that and, by implication, he would say that those who attend private events, which are in substance public events, should receive the same protection as those who attend events which are obviously and ostensibly public events. It might be helpful if I reminded him of the statutory framework. As a result of the 1987 legislation, Parliament has provided that licences are required
for any entertainment which consists of any sporting event to which the public are invited as spectators.
Then there is the qualification that the licence is not required
when the sporting event which constitutes the entertainment is not the principal purpose for which the premises are used on that occasion.
That proviso would benefit the pub where a darts march is held which the public might be invited to watch but which is not the principal purpose for which the premises are used.
That statutory requirement governs those entertainments to which the public are invited as spectators. For a truly private event, the legislation should not provide similar requirements, because the regulatory framework that we would have to set up would be oppressive and would overwhelm the regulatory authorities. But the question whether something is private or public is a question of law. When called upon to determine it, the courts will have regard not to the form but to the substance, and it is plain that where members of the public are invited to roll up on the day and pay their membership fees at the door, that will almost certainly be treated as a public event to which the regulations will apply, whereas they will not apply to a truly private event. It is a question of substance, not of form.
My hon. Friend referred specifically to Queensway ice rink. Hitherto, Queensway has not been licensed, but I understand that it has applied to Westminster city council for a public entertainment licence and that the council will consider that application. Although I do not wish to express a concluded view as to the law in such a case, at first blush it seems that Queensway ice rink is right to do so. I understand that members of the public turn up to watch what goes on there, they pay their fees at the door and they are admitted. If that is a correct analysis of what happens, the ice rink is certainly caught by the 1987 legislation and, consequently, it requires a licence. The question is always one of reality, not of form, and if in substance it is a public event, the operators require the relevant licence.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter and for giving me the opportunity to spell out the general legislative framework that applies and my understanding of the law insofar as it applies to the specific points that he made. Since the Bradford fire, we have all become more conscious of the dangers that are inherent when large crowds gather at sporting events, and I believe that as a result of the practical changes that have been made since the Popplewell inquiry, and as a result of the legislation that the House passed earlier this year, the public can be certain that when they attend sporting events they are reasonably safe.

Law Centres

Mr. Keith Vaz: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important issue of the continued funding and extension of funding of law centres. The last time the House debated law centres was on 13 March 1986, at the unfriendly hour of 2.46 am. That debate was held on a motion moved by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and concerned two law centres in his constituency—in Gateshead and Newcastle. Since then, an early-day motion has been tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) and signed by 70 other hon. Members from both sides of the House—a sign that the whole concept of law centres has support from all hon. Members.
This morning's debate will, I hope, elicit from the Minister a clear statement about the standing and future funding of law centres. The funding of law centres is in a state of chaos. A wide range of organisations have been funding them. Law centres began in Britain in 1970. The first law centre started in north Kensington with donations from local charitable organisations. It was because of the success of the north Kensington law centre that the Lord Chancellor's Department took on funding in 1974.
In the past 17 years a number of law centres have opened and closed, and there are now 57 such centres in Britain — for a population of more than 55 million people. It is a sad fact that only one person in 10 lives within the catchment area of a law centre. Geographically, the position is even worse. There is only one law centre in Scotland, one in Wales and one in Northern Ireland. In the east midlands, there are two in Leicester and one in Nottingham — no more. One law centre — Sandwell — closed this year, as its urban aid programme ran out.
The existence of law centres has the endorsement of every organisation that is active in the area of legal services. The Royal Commission on legal services in 1979 stated:
The impact of law centres has been out of all proportion to their size, to the number of lawyers who work in them and to the amount of work it is possible for them to undertake. The volume of work they have attracted has shown how deep is the need they are attempting to meet. It has dispelled the possibility of complacency over the institution of the legal aid scheme, has emphasised the importance of a wider distribution of legal services and has shown the desirability of enabling and encouraging lawyers to take up work elsewhere than in their traditional areas of activity and types of practice".
The chairman of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee, in the preface to the 35th annual report in 1984, said:
Whether it be provided through the Green Form Scheme, through Duty Solicitors, Law Centres, CABX, Tribunal Assistance Units, or other independent advice agencies, good early advice is the foundation of the Legal Aid Scheme … Our concern is to ensure that access to justice which these agencies represent is preserved undiminished, even in times of financial restraint".
In the Archbishop of Canterbury's report, "Faith in the City", published in 1985, there was a paragraph that stated:
The value of the role and the current need of the Centres and their present financial predicament could not be more clearly set out than in the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee's Report. We wish to give the fullest support to the proposals of the Lord Chancellor's Committee and recommend that they be implemented immediately".
In the debate in 1986 the Minister's predecessor said:


The Government do not dispute the usefulness of law centres in some areas, as shown in those reports, and most recently in the report of the Archbishop of Canterbury's commission on urban priority areas."—[Official Report, 13 March 1986; Vol. 93, c. 1251.]
It may be useful if I chronicle the activities of law centres. Without wishing to be patronising, I believe that very few Members of Parliament have worked in, visited or sought advice from a law centre. The centres are based on the concept that justice must be open to all members of the public, and they provide a vital resource for unmet legal needs in a community. Their arrival in 1970 transformed the legal landscape. For the first time, a solicitor entering practice did not have to concentrate on providing business for profit, but could concentrate on assisting people without the constraints of financial incentive. The law centres deal with a wide range of casework and issues. They provide information about rights. They give advice and information to other agencies, such as citizens' advice bureaux, they give information to individuals and groups and they take up cases. This country is not the only one that has law centres. Other countries, notably Holland and the United States, accept and promote the idea of public legal services.
Before coming to the House I worked in the North Leicester advice centre. There are two law centres in Leicester, the Leicester Rights law centre in the centre of the city, and the Highfields and Belgrave law centre, which became the North Leicester advice centre and the Highfields advice centre earlier this year. The Leicester Rights law centre received a grant from central Government which ended in March 1986. Both centres provide valuable assistance to local people. In housing matters, advice and assistance is given against unscrupulous landlords. Immigration matters such as visa extensions and appeals are also dealt with. In matters of crime, young people are assisted through the processes of the law. The centres also handle issues of welfare rights, employment and small claims in the county court. In the past six months, the North Leicester advice centre has assisted more than 3,000 people and last year the Leicester Rights centre dealt with thousands of inquiries from local people. Both organisations have immense community support. On 23 October 1985, the Leicester Mercury stated:
The concept of the centre is an excellent one. It exists to give a handy, low-cost or free legal advice service to those who live in the areas, who have problems with the legal system.
Yet there are very few such centres in the east midlands. There is one in Nottingham, but none in Lincolnshire, Leicestershire county or Derbyshire, although there are moves to set up a centre in Derby.
It is totally unacceptable that law centres, which have proved to be essential legal services, should have to compete each year for the morsels thrown into the trough of expenditure on public legal services and that law centre workers and their clients should have to go through the annual funding crisis. It is unacceptable for the Government to pass the buck to local authorities. Central Government are responsible for the provision of legal services, for the administration of legal aid and for the administration of justice. They should therefore have responsibility for central funding of law centres. The burden cannot be placed on local authorities such as Leicester and Nottingham, which do not have the resources to cope because of central Government cuts in

grant allocation. Without central Government funding there is a real fear that a number of law centres will have to close next year.
The pursuit of justice cannot be made cost-effective. Out of a total law centre bill of £7 million, only some £750,000 comes from the Lord Chancellor's Department and with grants from other Departments total funding does not exceed one seventh of the bill. Forty out of the 57 law centres are totally dependent on local authority finance. It is not good enough that people have access to legal services just because they happen to live within the boundaries of a Labour-controlled authority. I am sure the Minister will say that it is all a question of' money. Indeed, it does turn on money. It is only the Government who wish to evade their responsibility.
In a letter from the general secretary of the Law Society, Mr. Bowron, dated 21 October 1986 to the Lord Chancellor's legal aid advisory committee, he said:
The Law Society has supported secure central government funding for law centres for a number of years and remains of the view that this is the only way to avoid the waste of resources and the disruption caused by annual funding uncertainties.
Uncertain funding also results in difficulties in planning and developing law centre services.
The Law Centres Federation, which has campaigned for a number of years as the shop steward of law centres, said in February 1984:
Funding should be provided by Central Government, either directly through an appropriate Government Department or Departments, or through an intermediary body.
The advisory committee, in its 34th report, said:
We concluded that they should be treated as an essential part of the network of legal services, that your Lordship should take on responsibility for their core-funding and that the basis of that funding should be sufficiently assured to allow law centres to pursue viable recruitment and staffing policies and to promote long-term planning. Our views have only been strengthened by developments since our 34th Report was published.
The Society of Conservative Lawyers, in a pamphlet published a couple of years ago, called for the law centres to be expanded in number and put on a permanent arid central financial footing. It said:
The members of the public who have used law centres have received a generally excellent service at a modest cost to the public purse.
There must be no excuse for wriggling. Centrally funded national networks of law centres funded by central Government must be the way forward. One way to pay the cost is perhaps to abolish the role of private solicitors in the legal aid system and to ensure that all public money is dispensed on public legal services. I hope that the Government will look to a new approach.
There must be sufficient funds to provide services throughout the area, not just to inner-city areas, but to the outer estates and rural areas. There are parts of my constituency — Netherhall, Humberston, Rowletts Hill, Thurnby Lodge, Northfields and Goodwood in the outer estates of Leicester—that do not have any legal services because they are not in the inner-city areas. Local people there have exactly the same problems as people in the inner-city areas. They have problems with housing and welfare rights and they need assistance in exactly the same way. They do not necessarily have the transport facilities to go into the inner-city areas to get the legal advice that is available to others.
I am sure that the Minister has heard the story of Cinderella. Law centres are the Cinderella of the legal services movement. I hope that he will be the fairy godmother and that he will wave his wand and send Cinderella to the justice ball by announcing the statutory and central funding of a network of law centres. To refuse centrally to fund the only organisation that can ensure that justice is accessible to all our people might be interpreted by some as showing that only the well-off should have access to legal advice and, therefore, to justice. I am sure that the Minister would not want such a misinterpretation to occur. Justice is too sacred a commodity to be available only to certain segments of our society. It lies at the very heart of democracy and it must be equally available to all.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on his good fortune in obtaining this debate at a reasonable and appropriate hour for such an important subject. I welcome the opportunity in this new Parliament to set out once again the Government's approach to the funding of law centres.
The background to the hon. Gentleman's case for greater central funding of law centres lies in his experience of his own local law centre in Leicester, in which he has been employed in recent years. He has spoken in general terms of the problems of funding law centres, and I know that there were some specific problems in regard to the funding and management of one particular law centre in Leicester. I now understand from the council that, after a number of management changes, the new board is working well and the city council now proposes, indeed has undertaken, to return the law centre to management by the local community. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I both welcome that.
I should add that, back in 1983, the council wrote to Ministers at the Department of the Environment and to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in the hope that funding for law centres might be placed upon central Government. However, I have to make it clear that this is not, and never has been, Government policy. In many respects, I believe that the Leicester problem and the Leicester solution to that problem lend support to the Government's view that funding for law centres is, and should be, primarily a matter for local responsibility.
Government policy has been made clear on a number of occasions, and I am glad of the opportunity to restate it today. The Government warmly acknowledge that law centres can have a valuable role to play, depending on local circumstances, in the provision of legal services. They can often usefully supplement the national legal aid and legal advice scheme. They can frequently not only complement and supplement those formal legal services provided by local solicitors and by the Bar, but tie in helpfully with the less formal but often valuable help and advice on legal and quasi-legal matters provided by welfare rights organisations and citizens advice bureaux. However, in all these respects the establishment of and provision of support for law centres are essentially matters for local decision and initiative.
It is instructive to examine the overall provision of law centres. Over the nation as a whole there are now some 60 law centres in operation all of which have come into being

since the first law centre was established in north Kensington in 1970. Of these, 57 are members of the Law Centres Federation. The majority are based in inner city areas and 29 out of the 60 are situated in London. Of the 60, all but seven are funded by local government because of the need, as perceived by individual local authorities, for such services in their areas.
In relation to central funding, there has been no change in practice as between the previous Labour Government and the present Government. Between 1974 and 1979 the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Elwyn Jones, entered into commitments to fund seven law centres. Of these, four, accounting for nearly two thirds of the direct funding, some £410,000 out of £690,000 last year, are in London, and of the remainder there is one each in Birmingham, Cardiff and Leeds. The remainder of the funding from the Lord Chancellor's Department goes to the Law Centres Federation in London and towards a small contingency fund. Looking at overall national funding of law centres, total annual funding is between £6 million and £6·5 million per annum in last year's terms. Of this, central funding, including some support through the urban programme, amounts to a total of £1·02 million. The remainder, and therefore by far the greater proportion, is funded by local authorities, though it is right—and this is significant for what I shall say later — to remind the House that a proportion of that funding comes from funding to law centres for specific work carried out for individual clients through the legal aid green form scheme.
The House will, of course, be aware and the hon. Gentleman has rightly reminded us that the Royal Commission on legal services and the Lord Chancellor's legal aid advisory committee have recommended that central Government should assume responsibility for law centres and their funding. In its most recent report the legal aid advisory committee pointed again to the difficulties which can be caused by short-term funding commitments on the part of local authorities and other bodies and described the particular experience of Paddington north centre.
It has been argued, and the hon. Gentleman repeated the arguments eloquently today, that this policy can cause difficulty to law centres competing for limited local authority funds. I am also aware of the view that law centres should not have to rely for funds on bodies against whom they may be required to bring proceedings. However, it is a fact of life that the resources of both central Government and local government are inevitably limited and must therefore be subject to conflicting demands. Priorities have to be established. Local authorities are, we believe, considerably better placed than central Government to decide whether a particular local service is required or whether a service currently provided is appropriate to local needs. It is in some respects somewhat ironic to hear a representative of the Opposition arguing for central rather than local funding and control.
The next point is said to be the problem for law centres in litigating against the providers of their funds. I believe that the great majority of local authorities rightly and implicitly accept that the law centre must act in its clients' best interests. From time to time this will mean that a law centre has to act on behalf of its client against its own local authority which puts it in funds. However, the problem is no different in principle in relation to central Government, for the same arguments apply in relation to cases where it is necessary for the law centre to bring proceedings on


behalf of clients against central Government or their agencies in circumstances where central Government are the provider of funds.
I should, however, like to put the whole question of law centre funding into the context of overall Government funding for those who need financial assistance to obtain legal aid and advice and say a word or two about the future of such funding as outlined in the Government's White Paper presented to Parliament on 26 March 1987. Total expenditure on legal aid in 1986–87 amounted to no less than £391·5 million, a formidable increase on the 1979–80 figure of around £100 million.
The current figure is provided through five main channels. First, civil legal aid amounted last year to £104 million. Secondly, criminal legal aid, providing for the assistance of a solicitor, and, where appropriate, counsel in defending a case before the criminal courts, reached £177 million last year. Thirdly, legal advice and assistance, also widely known as "the green form scheme", enables a solicitor to give advice on any matter relating to English law and there is an initial cost limit on the amount of advice that can be given. That gave rise to total expenditure last year of just under £50 million. Fourthly, assistance by way of representation, known by the ugly acronym ABWOR, is an extension of the legal advice and assistance scheme which enables the solicitor to represent his client in certain circumstances, chiefly in domestic proceedings in the magistrates' courts, though it was extended in 1982 to cover mental health review tribunals and prison disciplinary hearings in 1984 and it gave rise last year to expenditure of £11·5 million. Finally, there are two statutory duty solicitor schemes. The first statutory scheme was introduced in 1983 and the other in 1986. The latter provides advice and assistance for people detained in police stations in connection with criminal charges. Last year expenditure on that amounted to £20 million.
With the exception of the duty solicitor schemes, all the schemes are means tested. By means of this funding during 1986, about 200,000 individuals received legal aid to bring or defend a civil case. About 500,000 received legal aid in connection with a criminal charge and about 1·2 million received advice and assistance from a solicitor.
The Government's commitment to an effective legal aid scheme was reaffirmed in the recent White Paper. The White Paper proposals, which will be taken forward in legislation in the coming Session as indicated in the Gracious Speech, are that in future responsibility for the administration of civil legal aid is to be transferred from the Law Society to a new, independent, legal aid board. In the context of the hon. Gentleman's remarks—I think that this will be of considerable interest — I draw the attention of the House to chapter IV of the White Paper dealing with future arrangements for the provision of legal advice. There are areas of the law in which the giving of advice is already more widely and effectively provided to many people by advice agencies such as the citizens advice bureaux and other agencies, rather than by local solicitors. Particular subjects, for example, are welfare benefits, housing, and employment. Such agencies, which are again largely funded locally, though with central Government

support as well, frequently have either lawyers among their staff or direct access to legal advice on points of law. In a number of fields, building on these developments, the Government believe that the present green form scheme may be able to be improved by a better service at lower cost. The Government are attracted to the principle of using the skills of advice agencies, especially to deal with those areas of work in which their special experience is likely to be greater than that of many solicitors in private practice.
The Government therefore intend to take powers to enable the new board to make alternative arrangements for the provision of advice and assistance for particular categories of work where this would be a more efficient way of providing the service.
The Government will require the board — and in these remarks I am taking up the White Paper—as an early task, to consider the most cost-effective way of providing advice and assistance, including specifically whether better arrangements might be made by making use of advice agencies. Once the board has set up suitable arrangements for contracting with agencies and other organisations for the provision of advice in the specified areas of work—for instance, advice on welfare benefits— these will be excluded altogether from the green form scheme.

Mr. Vaz: Does the Solicitor-General believe that justice should be cost-effective?

The Solicitor-General: I believe that in almost all elements of life, including Government, we should be as cost-effective as possible, and that must apply to justice as well as to other areas of expenditure.
The detailed arrangements could well involve tenders being sought for the provision of advice in the geographical areas covered by the board's area offices, and the form of coverage might well be different in different geographical areas. This may therefore provide a new opportunity for law centres and those who provide legal services through them. Either in their present form or perhaps a modified form, law centres might be able to improve their funding and extend the service that they provide by tendering for and obtaining contracts to provide advice and assistance in particular areas.
I should emphasise that the way ahead will depend on detailed proposals put forward by the new board at the time. The Government will need to be satisfied that all areas of the country are fully provided for in all types of work. Such moves towards new ways of delivering advice and assistance will take place only after the detailed arrangements for the change have been thoroughly worked out. Nevertheless, they offer potentially interesting and valuable opportunities both for those who work in law centres and the public who require such services. It must always be remembered, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General stressed in the debate last week when discussing the future of the services provided by the Bar, that the guiding principle, when deciding how best to make available legal services of whatever kind, must always be the public interest.

Cancer Screening

Mr. Timothy Raison:: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of breast scanner provision for my constituents in and around Princes Risborough. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for being here to reply to my remarks. There is no need for me to stress to my hon. Friend the importance of breast screening in the prevention and treatment of cancer, as I know that she and the Government are strongly committed to it. However, I should like to draw attention to the unfortunate circumstances that have arisen in my constituency, causing considerable local concern. Indeed, there is a strong sense of resentment over what seems an unfairness.
Briefly, the history is this. About four years ago, an appeal was launched in and around Aylesbury for a mobile breast screening or mammography unit, with the backing of Aylesbury Vale health authority and under the leadership of a consultant surgeon at Stoke Mandeville hospital—which, contrary to popular belief, is not just a spinal injuries unit, but the district and general hospital for the Aylesbury area. Stoke Mandeville is on the edge of Aylesbury.
There was a generous response to the appeal, and rightly so. Generosity was certainly shown by those living in the Princes Risborough area. The consultant surgeon who led the appeal told the people of Princes Risborough that they would be entitled to use the service: that is an important part of the story.
My constituents supported the appeal enthusiastically. Although it is not possible to say exactly how much was raised by the people of Princes Risborough, I have seen an estimate of about £3,000. Anyway, the usual energetic functions were launched. A bus was donated by, I believe, Luton airport; the money was raised, the unit was duly set up, based at Stoke Mandeville hospital, and the women of Princes Risborough were able to use it. For the most part, they had to go to Stoke Mandeville, rather than the mobile unit coming to Princes Risborough. But the distance between Princes Risborough and Stoke Mandeville is only five or six miles, and did not present any insuperable difficulties.
However, what was not fully understood, and perhaps was not sufficiently stressed by those who ran the operation, was that it was set up not in perpetuity, but only for a two-year trail period. At the end of that period, Aylesbury Vale health authority would make up its mind whether is should become permanent. Accordingly, after two years, the authority reviewed the operation and, very properly, decided to make permanent provision for screening women between the ages of 45 and 64. I give the authority credit for deciding to get on with that important process. However, it made another decision which had an adverse effect on my constituents — that the service would be available only to those living within the district of Aylesbury Vale health authority.
Princes Risborough is in a rather awkward position. It is an extemely pleasant and agreeable town which is doing very well, but it is in a kind of no man's land, lying roughly between Wycombe and Aylesbury and managing to fall between the two in various administrative ways. The district council is Wycombe, but the parliamentary constituency is Aylesbury. Princes Risborough patients

receive acute services from the Stoke Mandeville hospital in Aylesbury. Many people in Princes Risborough think of Stoke Mandeville as their hospital. However, for administrative purposes it lies within the territory of the Wycombe district hospital.
Stoke Mandeville provides both acute and other services, but preventive medicine is the responsibility of the Wycombe district council, the health authority for Princes Risborough. However, the mammography service was provided by the Aylesbury Vale health council. That is confusing, but what is much more important is that the Wycombe health authority does not yet provide a breast screening service. Therefore, the women of Princes Risborough no longer receive the breast screening service that they enjoyed during the two-year experiment by the Aylesbury Vale health authority, when they were able to go to Stoke Mandeville. They resent this, because they contributed generously towards the setting up of the service. It came as a considerable shock to them when they were told that they were no longer eligible for the service.
What are they to do about it? They could go private and pay £40 for breast screening; but £40 is quite a lot of money to pay for preventive screening of this kind, and not all my constituents would find it easy to fork out £40. If they are considered to be at risk, they can receive emergency treatment at Stoke Mandeville. It will not turn them away; doctors can refer patients to Stoke Mandeville for examination. Some individuals, of course, kick up such a fuss that they are taken on board, but that is not the right way to deal with the problem.
No screening service under the NHS is available to those women now. When the appeal was launched, they did not understand that it was to run for a two-year trial period. The consultant surgeon who led the appeal, unwittingly, I am sure, misled them. I do not make too much of that, because the consultant surgeon, who is well respected, was comparatively new to the district at the time and did not appreciate the administrative niceties. When he treated Princes Risborough patients he assumed that it was normal and that there was no demarcation.
Princes Risborough is now trapped in an administrative no man's land between Aylesbury and Wycombe. As the service has been withdrawn, a strong campaign has, not surprisingly, been mounted by a number of women in Princes Risborough. The Risborough and district community association, led by Mrs. Baker, has been particularly active in this cause.
Both the Ayles bury and the Wycombe health authorities have thought hard about what to do about it. Both I and other people have pressed them to take action, and the very conscientious Aylesbury general manager, Mr. Titley, has given close attention to the matter. Wycombe has also thought hard about it. Mr. Titley met the ladies of Princes Risborough to find out whether it would be possible to meet their request.
It was hoped that an interim solution could be found. It is clearly Wycombe's responsibility to offer preventive treatment. It was hoped that on Saturday mornings the mobile service could go to Princes Risborough and that Wycombe would pay for it but that Aylesbury would provide the service. I am afraid that that was not able to be brought about. There may have been problems about whether staff would want to work on Saturday mornings. I do not know exactly what happened. For one reason or another, it was not able to be put into effect.
As I understand it, Wycombe health authority is now working on plans to provide a district service. In a letter to me, it said that it is considering using Risborough for a pilot scheme. It is applying to the Oxford region for a share of the funds that are being made available from the DHSS to promote the service. I hope that something will come of that soon, but, for the moment, there is nothing in the immediate offing, and the feeling remains justifiably strong. What can my hon. Friend the Minister do about it? She is well known throughout the country for her positive approach to problems. She is not one to sit back and do nothing. I am quite confident that her positive approach will be manifested when she replies.
Certain things might be done. My hon. Friend could go back to Aylesbury and, once again, ask whether it might not, after all, be able to provide temporary cover for the people of Princes Risborough, presumably acting on an agency basis for Wycombe. There were serious discussions about it between the two authorities. They came to nothing. A debt of honour is owed to the people of Princes Risborough. It seems to be eminently reasonable for the Minister to go back and, once again, ask whether an interim solution can be found. If that is not possible, another possibility is worth thinking about; that is, to see whether for the time being one of the local private hospitals might be employed by one or other of the health authorities to provide an interim service. I have not gone into the matter in detail. I am not sure exactly whether facilities are available, but it is likely that they are. It will obviously be a matter of whether Wycombe should pay for them—presumably it would since it is the responsible authority—although it might be argued that, since, in a sense. Aylesbury has been involved in the history of the matter, it would be appropriate for Aylesbury to pay it. One way or another, it seems that there may be an interim answer by using a private hospital to provide what is not available in the National Health Service.
The other point is to urge the Wycombe authority and the Oxford region to proceed as fast as possible with the setting up of a proper breast screening unit. It is widely accepted that that is an important aspect of preventive medicine. The district general manager of the Wycombe health authority wrote to me on 28 April to say:
We must now press on as quickly as possible with the establishment of a district service which will meet the needs of the Princes Risborough population.
I hope that my hon. Friend will endorse that view and do all that she can to try to make sure that it is brought about as soon as possible. The Oxford region is rather starved of money—that is not the topic of the debate—but there is a central Government commitment, and additional central Government funds are being made available. I hope that we may now see swift action to solve the serious problem that has caused much anxiety. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's response.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) on his success in the ballot today. Once again, he represented his constituents with a determination and distinction that less experienced hon. Members watch so that we might learn how it is done. He may be aware that I was in Oxford last week and had the opportunity of meeting the chairmen of the district and

regional health authorities. We discussed many issues, including co-operation between districts, to which the subject of the debate is pertinent.
In 1984, a public appeal was launched by a consultant surgeon, Mr. Alan Taylor, at the Stoke Mandeville hospital to raise funds for a two-year pilot project to evaluate the need for a breast cancer screening service in the Aylesbury Vale district. The appeal was supported by the district health authority, and money was donated, as my right hon. Friend rightly said, not only by the residents of Aylesbury Vale but by the residents of Princes Risborough, Tring, Thame and Chinnor. A coach was donated by the Luton airport authority. It was converted into a mobile examination and screening unit into which a mammography unit and an X-ray film processor were fitted. This is an opportune moment to put on record our considerable appreciation of the tremendous efforts that have been made to help the women of that neighbourhood.
The survey started on 21 May 1984. During the following two years of the pilot project, the mobile unit never visited Princes Risborough, but remained in the boundaries of the Aylesbury Vale district health authority. The women from Princes Risborough used the self-referral service when the coach was parked in the car park at the Stoke Mandeville hospital, which was the nearest of the coach's venues to Princes Risborough.
From an examination of the records of the women who were screened during that two-year period, it seems that between 50 and 60 women residents of Princes Risborough managed to use the service. In 1985 the unit spent more than three months on site at Stoke Mandeville, which is the longest period that it spent anywhere. Clearly, it was of some value and use to the women of Princes Risborough.
Although Princes Risborough lies within the boundaries of Wycombe health authority, the residents of Princes Risborough generally look to Aylesbury Vale DHA for acute services. They are usually provided at Stoke Mandeville, which is the major district general hospital. It is now accepted that in the early days of the appeal the organisers may have given Princes Risborough residents to understand that the unit would visit their town. Perhaps, as my right hon. Friend has hinted, some of those concerned were not fully aware of the geographical boundaries or the administrative niceties of the Health Service, or of the corresponding different areas of responsibility of the two district health authorities concerned.
At the end of the two-year pilot project, an evaluation report was completed. That report was considered by the Aylesbury Vale district health authority at its meeting on 9 April 1986. On the basis of the evidence contained in the report of the pilot project, it was decided to develop a formal breast screening service for all women residents between the ages of 45 and 64 years, living within the Aylesbury Vale health district. Those women were to be identified individually and invited to attend for screening, using a letter sent by their general practitioner in April 1986. Unfortunately, some months elapsed between the decision being taken and formal notification of the new operational policy being sent to general practitioners in Aylesbury Vale, and to those on the boundaries. In fact, the letter was eventually sent on 21 November 1986. I have no indication as to why there was such a long delay.
However, the health authority agreed to fund the service from its growth money, using equipment paid for


out of the public appeal. The service could not be extended beyond the boundaries of the district, not only because of the increased financial resources that would be required, but because of an inability to cope with the greater work load. Before long, Aylesbury Vale health authority had received complaints and representations from many people including the Princes Risborough parish council, the Risborough community association and my right hon. Friend, stating that the service should be available for all women in the appropriate age group who were residents in Princes Risborough. Aylesbury Vale health authority has stuck to its opinion that the service cannot be extended to residents in other health authority areas.
Meanwhile, as my right hon. Friend knows, the Government had been taking steps of their own. During the approximate time period of these events, the Government had commissioned Professor Forrest from the university of Edinburgh to report to us on much the same basis as to whether a system of breast screening, based on mammography or on something else, would be appropriate for the population at large. During the late autumn of 1986 Professor Forrest and his team reported to us and the Forrest report, setting out in detail how such a programme could be organised and what it would cost, was sent to the Government. The report recommended that we should base the screening system on mammography—a system of low-energy X-rays.
My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State announced on 25 February this year that the Government had accepted in full the proposals of the Forrest report that a breast cancer screening system should be set up throughout the United Kingdom. A draft circular setting out the proposed arrangements in England was issued on 31 March.
As I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury realises, we are the first country in the world to set up a screening programme that will be available for all women in the target age groups. That is a major first for this country and for this Government. I am pleased that the Government have recognised the needs of women and recognised also the importance of preventive health for the women of this country.
The services will provide a computerised call and recall system to screen women aged between 50 and 64 by mammography every three years. Older women will be screened if they wish; they are not being excluded. There is insufficient evidence so far to show that mass screening for younger women is effective in significantly reducing mortality. More research is required and is under way. The women who were coming in through the previous system in Aylesbury and Princes Risborough were coming from the age of 45. The recommendation of the Forrest report is that with the current state of the art the service is effective only from the age of 50. However, that is a matter we are keeping under review. Although women under 50 are not to be included in the screen population, any younger women at special risk—for example, if there appears to be an inherited tendency in the family—may be offered mammography if referred by the general practitioner.
A total of £6 million is being provided in 1987–88 to set up the centres in England. Each regional health authority is being funded by approximately one third of a million pounds to set up its first centre which would cover a

population of about 500,000. Four of the centres, which are at Guildford, Nottingham, Manchester and King's college hospital in Camberwell, will be funded to provide training for staff for the whole programme in England. The remaining centres, which total about 100 in all, will be set up during 1988–89 and 1989–90. In other words, it is a three-year programme.
All parts should have a service by 31 March 1990 and every eligible woman in this country should have been offered screening by 31 March 1993. The programme must be developed relatively slowly because of the need to train staff and to provide back-up facilities for diagnosis, treatment, counselling and aftercare. A total of 1,000 additional staff, all of whom need to be recruited and trained, will be involved and we are well aware of the importance of the advice given to us by Professor Forrest that at all times we must aim for a high quality of service, so we must not rush the training of the staff involved.
An advisory committee is being set up to advise on the development of the service, to monitor its effectiveness and efficiency and to advise on research concerned with its provision. The appointment of Professor Martin Vessey as chairman was announced on 8 April and the other members have now been appointed. Sir Roy Griffiths, the deputy chairman of the National Health Service management board, is leading a small team to oversee the implementation of the service.
My right hon. Friend may be aware of a parliamentary question which I answered on 23 July concerning the locations of the other 10 centres to be opened this year. The four main training centres have already been announced. The other 10 centres, adding up to one for each of the 14 regional health authorities, have now been announced and are Barnet, Epping. Liverpool, Stoke, Gateshead, Southampton, Huddersfield, Aylesbury Vale, Suffolk and Cornwall. The services at Epping, Huddersfield, Aylesbury Vale, Suffolk and Cornwall will be run from a mobile system.
Some of the regional health authorities are also planning to start further centres before March 1988, but by March 1990 there will be sufficient centres to provide a nationwide service. We have contacted the Oxford regional health authority, which tells us that it is establishing its first breast cancer screening service in line with the recommendations in the Forrest report. As I have just mentioned, it will be in Aylesbury Vale. The population to be serviced by this centre has not been finally determined. It will mainly depend on the arrangements to be made with the family practitioner committees for the operation of the computerised call and recall system, but it will be normal to cover more than one district. Indeed, we are recommended to provide centres which will cover some half a million people in order to make the system cost-effective. That implies more than one district.
In any event, Oxford regional health authority expects the population of Princes Risborough to be provided with the full computerised call and recall breast cancer screening service before March 1989. In other words, Princes Risborough, although not part of the first tranche, will certainly be part of the second tranche of the service being provided.
The problem is that for the next 18 months the residents of Princes Risborough—many of whom contributed to the appeal that launched the voluntary service at Aylesbury Vale and some of whom used it when it was


located at Stoke Mandeville hospital — will not have access to a service. I have listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend has said and I will take up his suggestion and draw it to the attention of the appropriate health authority chairmen. I agree with my right hon. Friend that we are not talking about an enormous expenditure, an enormous number of women or something that will go on indefinitely. The Health Service is to provide a screening service within the fairly near future.
It is important to bear in mind that only some 50 to 60 women in Princes Risborough used the service. Given that a scan is recommended at three-year intervals only, most of them would not expect to be recalled until the new service is in use. However, I recognise that if some women used the voluntary service in 1984 or 1985 their need for another scan might come up during the gap in provision.
I offer my right hon. Friend two thoughts on this matter. First, there are other systems of detection, such as self-examination. We would always strongly recommend that women undertake breast self-examination under the guidance and assistance of their general practitioners or with other groups in their community. That practice normally reveals anything that is possibly giving rise to concern. Women should certainly examine their breasts. Secondly, if there is anything wrong, nobody should wait for a letter from their general practitioner or from a computer—that applies to all screening systems. Around a quarter of a million women a year find something wrong with one or possibly both of their breasts. We pick up about 25,000 cases of breast cancer a year, but sadly there are some 15,000 deaths. The scheme is designed to reduce the death toll from breast cancer. However, nine out of 10 breast lumps are cysts that are benign. They need treatment if only because of the psychological benefit to the patient concerned. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join me in urging any woman who discovers anything that she is not happy with to go to see her general practitioner at once and insist on being properly examined and treated.
The problem that we face here stems from a misunderstanding about the scope of the original voluntary service. I share the sense of regret felt by those

in the districts concerned. We must consider the following lessons. It is most important to be absolutely clear for whose benefit an appeal for funds is made. Secondly, there should be a clear, written and publicised agreement with the health authorities that will demonstrate who will run the service, who will start it, who will pay for it and, in the long term, who will replace the equipment. It is not good enough to provide a service once and then go through the hassle of raising more money when equipment requires replacing.
The enthusiasm of the appeal organisers in 1984 was tremendously commendable. However, it is clear that enthusiasm is not enough. Clear protocols are needed with regard to the service and links between the private sector, the appeal organisers and the health authorities. I say that with feeling having come across this sort of thing in my time as a district health authority chairman. I hope that these warnings will serve to avoid similar difficulties in the future when appeals are launched.
I have given the undertaking that I will write to the district health authority chairmen concerned and I am asking the regional chairman to look at the problem, take into account the issues that have been mentioned today and to report back to me. I will ensure that the points that my right hon. Friend has made are fully discussed. I will let my right hon. Friend know the outcome of those discussions.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join me in commending both the original organisers of the scheme and all those now concerned with it in their efforts to improve the health and the death rate of women from this appalling disease within that neighbourhood.

Mr. Raison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the tone of her response and for the information that she has given. I look forward to hearing the results. I am sure that she will get the message over strongly that we do not need an enormous operation to deal with the interim period.

Mrs. Currie: My right hon. Friend and I are together on that point. I hope that, overall, there will be a major improvement in the services to women in his constituency.

Smith Houses

Mr. Peter Snape: I applied for this Adjournment debate on the last day of term to bring to the attention of the House the plight of those in my constituency and in other constituencies in the west midlands, including yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, who have purchased their Smith-type homes under various schemes and the tenants of similar houses who are waiting for repairs to be carried out. The local authorities are expected to pay for those repairs out of their increasingly meagre housing investment allocations.
In the case of Sandwell—our local authority, Madam Deputy Speaker— those allocations have decreased from £12·3 million in 1986–87 to £10·5 million in 1987–88. Sandwell's application for the current year was about £55 million, and this miserly funding from central Government means that the council will have to operate its repairs programme under enormous pressure, Smith-type and other defective properties apart. Housing officials have estimated that, given the rate of housing allocation from the Government, it will take until the year 2013 for all pre-second world war properties in the borough of Sandwell to be modernised. Some of the council properties built between 1945 and 1964 will probably also require major repairs.
You and I, Madam Deputy Speaker, hold some of our surgeries at West Bromwich town hall. I know, because we discuss these matters, that you and I see a continuing and apparently non-stop stream of people who have housing problems. The same happens to my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). Our constituents come to see us about the lack of repairs to their properties or the need for swifter action by the council to carry out those repairs. None of the four of us has any direct responsibility for such matters, but it would take a braver man than me to tell some of my constituents that. I know that you and our two colleagues refer our constituents' complaints by letter to the housing department, but the reply is always the same: "We do not have the money adequately to repair the properties that we own." I accept that that must be the case, given the cut in housing improvement programme allowances in recent years. Therefore, the solution for those who live in Smith-type houses recedes with every year that the HIP allocation is cut.
The problem cannot be accurately described as a national one, but it is of regional concern, with most affected houses concentrated in the west and east midlands and in south Wales. I understand that about 4,500 properties were built using the system. The Building Research Establishment report on the structural condition of Smith houses was published as long ago as December 1983, and it concluded that they all suffer from some defects. It said that the houses showed cracks at the junctions of the concrete blocks and between the external and partition walls. The BRE also found that some Smith houses in Birmingham were seriously defective because of the use of shale fill in the foundations.
Those details have been debated previously in the House, not least by you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the previous Session, before you took up your present post, you initiated a similar debate and received an answer from

the Minister at that time which was similar to the one that I fear I will receive from this new Minister. Although I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on her swift elevation to her present position, and without anticipating the brief that has been prepared for her or the fact that she will no doubt deliver it as elegantly as ever, I hope that the pleas of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and of myself on behalf of our constituents will not fall on stony ground. I should not really say that because it sounds ungallant, but the House will know what I mean.
The stark fact is that, although the BRE report was published in 1983, in July 1987 there is still no approved and licensed repair to the Smith properties, and owners, tenants and councils alike are in a state of limbo, in which they have existed ever since the structural problems of the houses first became seriously apparent. I, and those owners, have become tired of the complacency exhibited by successive Conservative Ministers.
The right to buy has been a much trumpeted venture on the part of the Government. Indeed, in the recent election campaign it formed a central plank of their manifesto and appeal to the electorate, as it did in 1983. I make no complaint about that, but little or nothing is heard of the plight of those people who have exercised the right to buy their homes from local authorities and who now find themselves facing personal economic disaser. Their plight might not cut much ice with those who can afford to be in the two or perhaps three home-owning league, but it does with me. In the surgeries to which I referred earlier, in addition to the pleas for repairs from tenants of council-owned property in the borough of Sandwell, I have heard heart-rending cases of hardship from those owners who have been unforunate enough in the past to purchase Smith-type houses. They see no real prospect of re-purchase in the immediate future; they have waited in vain for years for an approved system of repair. They have set up a national scheme to enable the owners of Smith houses to have some communication with each other. The national secretary of that scheme, Mrs. Sylvia Holden, resides in your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, rather than in mine, but I do not think that I breach any parliamentary protocol when I tell you that she has been to see me on behalf of those constituents of mine who are in a similar position to hers.
What is perhaps far worse for her and the people whom she represents is that they have probably made the largest single purchase of their lives. They are acutely aware of the suspicions of prospective buyers if they try to sell their homes on the open market. It is futile to point out—it has been pointed out in the House by Ministers—that some of the homes have less serious defects than others. I assure the Minister that, to people who are planning to purchase a house in those areas of the country in which Smith properties are most densely located, it matters not whether they are founded on shale, quicksand or the rock of Gibraltar. They are still Smith houses, and it quickly becomes apparent that they are; and, as such, they have about as much allure to the prospective buyer as Dracula's castle.
I have with me a letter from a firm of local estate agents, valuers and surveyors that was written to one of my constituents — Mrs. Dulleston, of 57 William Green road, Wednesbury — as long ago as July 1985. In the letter, the company, Shipley Cameron, states:


The vast majority of all Building Societies are not now entertaining applications for Smith-type houses and this obviously seriously affects their sale price.
That, perhaps, ranks as the understatement of that year, but it is true now as it was then. As a result of meetings that were held about that time — I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were responsible for convening them, and both of us spoke at them—it was suggested by some owners of these properties that some discreet pressure might be applied by the Government to building societies to make them look sympathetically at the plight of those who were considering applying for mortgages for houses of that type. As long ago as 1985, the estate agents Shipley Cameron referred to that suggestion:
It has been suggested that Government pressure may be brought to bear discreetly on Building Societies to take a lenient view of the Smith-type construction when considering mortgage finance. I feel that this attitude is rather naive because, as I have mentioned before, Building Societies have a duty of responsibility to their investing members to act wisely. Furthermore, I must underline that Building Society Valuers, upon whose advice the Building Society advance mortgage monies, will be concerned about any possible future negligence claims having recommended a house for mortgage finance with potential structural defects.
Not much prospect is held out there, but there was one optimistic note in the letter:
If, however, the properties are included in the list of defective houses under the Housing Defects Act of 1984, the problem should resolve itself insomuch that Purchasers, Building Societies, and their valuers will have some protection, against potential defects in Law.
Until such time as this happens I have to tell you that your property is virtually unsaleable and I, together with my colleagues in my Profession, await to see how the situation resolves itself.
Thanks in no small part to the campaign that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I and other colleagues in the borough of Sandwell waged, and the efforts of Members from other parts of the country, Smith houses have been included in the list under the 1984 Act. However, that has brought little comfort to your constituents or mine, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the shoddy tale of prevarication on the part of the Government has continued, although one must admit that it has been consistent with their political philosophy. Ministers continue to vaunt the private enterprise philosophy and to adopt the principle that the weakest go to the wall when unfortunate individuals such as my constituents try private enterprise and fail. At a recent meeting in Sandwell to discuss the cost of repair of dwellings of this type, an estimate of £20,000 per dwelling was given. On that basis, repairs to Smith properties in Sandwell alone will cost nearly £6 million. The Minister will no doubt remind us that the Government recently allocated a further £388,000 in addition to the figure mentioned earlier for the current year, but that is intended to cover all similar defective properties.
It should be recalled that potential purchasers of such properties are usually first-time buyers with little deposit money and requiring maximum mortgage facilities. It may be argued that if the original purchaser had had a proper structural survey carried out at the time of purchase, the defects might have been revealed. However, there was no legal requirement to spend several hundred pounds on such a survey and it is understandable that people purchasing from a local authority a property in which they had lived trouble-free for some years did not think it necessary to embark on the extra expense of a full structural survey.
The additional £388,000 is scarcely generous. In the borough of Sandwell there are 3,354 properties of non-traditional construction, of which 859 are Smith houses. In that situation, the Government's additional funding is a mere drop in the bucket and will go no way at all to meeting the understandable fears of owners of Smith houses or of the remaining tenants who live in these rapidly crumbling and less than palatial dwellings.
My point to the Minister is blunt, short and specific. When will the Government make adequate funds available so that councils such as mine can repair or repurchase those sort of dwellings? Councils have listened to enough funny words. They thought that they had won a major victory when they were included tinder the Housing Defects Act 1984. I am afraid that such inclusion is of no value unless some extra cash from the Government is forthcoming.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe): I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for giving us the opportunity to discuss these issues. My Department's officials met representatives of the Sandwell and Districts National Smiths PRC Owners Association earlier this year and I know that they found the meeting very useful. It gave them a clear picture of the problems of Smith owners nationally. The hon. Member has understandably focused on the problems of Smith houses in Sandwell today. However, I would like to take the opportunity to set out the background to the problem generally and to say something about how the housing defects legislation — now consolidated in the Housing Act 1985—was introduced to deal with it.
When the Building Research Establishment first discovered serious problems with the Airey-type house in 1981, and subsequently found that these problems also affected other prefabricated reinforced concrete houses designed before 1960, former tenants who had exercised their right to buy were faced with immediate problems of mortgageability and blight. We could have relied on the principle of caveat emptor and turned our backs on the problem.
However, we recognised that the Government had a responsibility to those owners who had bought in good faith from the public sector, in ignorance of the inherent defects and that they could not have foreseen these problems when they bought. They now find themselves in an impossible position.
We therefore introduced first the voluntary Airey scheme of assistance in response to the initial Airey problem. Then we brought in the more comprehensive scheme of assistance under the housing defects legislation. The Housing Defects Act 1984—as it was known before it was consolidated in the Housing Act—had all-party support in its passage through Parliament and it was welcomed as a generous scheme to owners. Smith houses were only recently brought within this legislation.
The Building Research Establishment was originally commissioned to study Smith houses at the time that the Act was going through Parliament. Its findings did not indicate that designation was warranted at that stage. The Smith house is built of large concrete blocks. Although it is another type of concrete house, it does not have the load-bearing reinforcement found in the PRC-type house. Some steel was placed in the blocks for handling purposes,


but it is structurally redundant. However, following further representations, particularly from Birmingham Members, as well as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), we asked the BRE to look further at Smith houses in Sandwell. It found vertical splitting and cracking, caused by deterioration of the steel handling reinforcement bars in the concrete blocks. This could ultimately threaten structural stability.
We considered these findings, and other information on loss in values and so on. We concluded that we should designate nationally. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Patten) announced this on 19 December 1985. Smith houses were formally designated on 1 May 1986. We also made sure that, when the national designation was made, this would not rule out additional problems found in the foundations at Smith houses in Sandwell. We did this by holding back national designation of the handling bar defect, to give authorities, like Sandwell, time to make local designations to cover the foundation problem.
We always made it clear that we were prepared to look at this matter if new evidence came to light and, when it did, we recognised the very real problems facing Smith owners. We should not overlook this when we discuss some of the particular problems raised by the hon. Member today, and which I know are worrying Smith owners.
Eligible owners are entitled to a 90 per cent. local authority grant to reinstate the property, or 100 per cent. grant in financial hardship cases. Where repair is not possible or is not economic, assistance will still be available by repurchase at 95 per cent. of the defect-free value in relation to both the Smith handling bar defect and the foundation defect.
As to reinstatement under the Act, we are now making good progress on approved repair methods. The National House Building Council's subsiduary, PRC Homes Ltd., has approved 38 repair systems covering 10 designated house types and 24 more schemes are in the pipeline. These approved methods cover over two thirds of designated houses in private ownership. Last autumn, we increased the grant expenditure limits for most of the designated house types, including Smith. The new limit for Smith is £20,000 to deal with the handling bar defect. Where houses in Sandwell also suffer from the use of shale in foundations, owners are entitled to a further grant of up to £14,000 to deal with that problem.
Repairs are now getting under way in many areas of the country. Over 2,000 properties have either been repaired or are currently in the process of repair under the PRC Homes Ltd. warranty scheme. This is what most of us hoped would happen when we brought in this legislation — we know that local authorities and owners want it too. That is not to say that we do not recognise some of the very real pressures facing some owners and their authorities.
As the hon. Member is aware, many Smith owners are anxious to know when they will receive the assistance to which they are entitled and what form that will take. All designations under the Act lay down a 10-year period of assistance, and owners will get their assistance during this period. We should all remember that the Act does not lay

down a timetable and the timing of any decisions on individual owners' applications is in the hands of the authority concerned.
That said, the Act does provide help for owners who need to move quickly, under the hardship provisions. These allow owners to claim assistance by repurchase if it would be unreasonable for them to await repair. Decisions on such cases are made at the local authority's discretion. We have given broad guidance in circulars to authorities on the kind of circumstances in which they might offer repurchase on hardship grounds. We look to local authorities to operate the Act in a reasonable way but, ultimately owners who are not satisfied with their council's decision can take the matter to the county court. We would hope that it would not come to this.
The hon. Member has raised the question of repair methods for Smith houses and has referred to delay in obtaining a licensed system. Although it has taken some time satisfactorily to resolve all the technical details, there are signs of some real progress here. A firm of repairers, W. G. Curtin, has submitted a Smith repair system to PRC Homes Ltd. for approval. We understand that this system has now been professionally appraised. We would hope that a licensed repair system for Smith houses will be available before very long. Obviously, Smith houses are somewhat different from PRC type houses and it is important that any repair method proposed meets the requirements of the Act. The repaired property must have an expected life of at least 30 years, and it must be generally accepted as mortageable for the purpose of the Act. That is why any repair system for Smith houses should be appraised carefully, so that the problem can be dealt with properly once and for all.
The grant expenditure limit for Smith houses was increased to £20,000 only last autumn. It is too early to say whether this will represent the average cost of repair, but the situation should become clear once a repair system has emerged.
I know that resources are of particular concern to the hon. Gentleman. The initial 1987–88 housing investment programme allocations were notified to local authorities in December last year. Sandwell received the second highest allocation among the local authorities in the west midlands region, and its estimate of expenditure this year is higher in real terms than that for each of the last two years. We generally expect authorities to be able to meet their obligations on housing defects grants or repurchase from within their normal housing programme resources—in other words, from their basic HIP allocation plus the prescribed proportion of capital receipts. In Sandwell's overall review of management, 1985–86, in the section on resources it says:
Almost any new initiative will cost money, but the Council is by no means short of it".
The same report quoted substantial reserves in the region of £24 million. Interest alone on that sum would amount to at least £2 million per annum.
However, £14 million extra HIP resources for 1987–88 were set aside nationally for authorities facing particularly high housing defects obligations in relation to the rest of their capital programmes. Sandwell was one of the many authorities to apply for an additional allocation, and in recognition of its particular problems it received an additional £388,000 — the third highest total figure among the claims from other authorities in the region.

Mr. Snape: I want to put two quick points as I understand the time factor. If Sandwell is such a rich authority, why are the Government, who are not renowned for chucking money at local authorities, granting a parsimonious but nevertheless extra amount of £388,000? Secondly, is the Minister aware that there are about 90 of these properties in my constituency alone, there are four times as many in the adjacent constituency of West Bromwich, West and there are plenty of others in the two Warley constituencies? Is it not a question of cash? Sandwell does not have that cash.

Mrs. Roe: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's points. However, the Government have acted fairly towards Sandwell as well as towards many other authorities in this connection.
In conclusion, we are continuing to monitor the position. This year's round of HIP meetings should give my Department's regional office a valuable update. The precise pattern of expenditure under the Housing Defects Act 1984 is not easy to predict. Much depends on when owners apply, what form assistance is likely to take, taking account of the availability and like cost of repair methods, as well as any urgent hardship cases.
Even if large numbers of owners do apply, the cases, for many reasons, do not necessarily crystallise for some time. That is why my Department encourages local authorities and owners to co-operate and reach an agreement on a likely timetable for assistance. That should take full account of owners' needs as well as overall resource availability. We know of many areas where authorities and owners have agreed such programmes, for example, in Bristol, Epping Forest and Birmingham. We believe that, with good will all round, sensible programmes are achievable which are acceptable to all the parties involved.

Bromley (Government Planning Policy)

2 pm

Mr. Roger Sims: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the effect of Government planning policies in the London borough of Bromley. I am grateful also to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for attending this, her third debate today. I hope that she will find a special interest in this debate, she being a past member of the council of the London borough of Bromley. I believe that she still has a home within the borough.
I wish to discuss planning procedures in built-up areas, covering extensions and in-fillings, and applications for development within the green belt. I do so in the context of Bromley, but the issues that I shall raise have a wider interest, as was demonstrated in the earlier debate that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay).
Planning is a sensitive issue. We all know that an Englishman's home is his castle, and we expect, if we want to, to be able to extend our own home and do whatever we wish to it. It is an entirely different matter, however, if the chap next door wants to extend his home. If we buy a site on which to build our own home, we expect to be able to build the sort of house that we want. If someone else purchases an open space in our neighbourhood and wants to build, we react strongly to the spoiling of our surroundings.
There has to be a correct balance in these matters between the rights of the individual and the rights and needs of the community. The body that exists to strike it is the local council, which is the planning authority. In doing so it is guided by town planning laws, Department of the Environment guidelines, the town plan and members of the local authority who have an intimate knowledge of the area. Local councillors are especially important because every planning case is individual and a development that may be entirely appropriate on one site may be entirely unsuitable on another site nearby.
It can be argued that the local authority should be the final arbiter in these matters, but even councillors are human beings with weaknesses and foibles:. They may make mistakes, and in any event natural justice suggests that there should be some system of appeal. Appeal is, theoretically, to the Secretary of State, but we know that in practice these matters are handled by inspectors whom he appoints. The inspectors receive written statements and they might make a site visit. In some instances there will be an inquiry.
The appeal system is somewhat one-sided. If an applicant applies for a development and he is refused by the local authority, he has the right of appeal. There may have been a number of local objections to the proposal, however, and if, despite the objections, the council decides to grant the application, the objectors have no right of appeal. It seems there should be a system whereby in some circumstances at least objectors have a right of appeal, or that in circumstances where there are objections the Secretary of State should call in the plan and examine it himself.
The presumption behind planning laws is, or at least has been, that the local authority knows best, and I am concerned that between 1983 and 1986 the national figures show that the proportion of appeals allowed increased from 32·4 per cent. to 40·5 per cent. That is a large enough


increase in itself, but over the same period in Bromley the number of appeals allowed increased from 29 per cent. to 44 per cent.
It is worth examining some of the decisions. For example, in Beckenham an entire house that was used as office accommodation without planning permission clearly contravened the local plan in respect of loss of residential accommodation. The enforcement notice that was issued by the council was quashed and permission was granted on appeal. In Orpington, permission was refused on four separate occasions and two appeals were dismissed for the erection of a dwelling house. Towards the end of last year permission was granted on appeal, despite the fact that the house would have virtually no garden. In Chislehurst high street, permission was granted on appeal for car repairs on a prominent site within the Chislehurst conservation area. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) in the Chamber. Alas, he is mute; but, if he were not, he could say that he was until very recently a constituent of mine. Application was made a couple of years ago for development of a site near to where he lived. That application was refused. The applicant took it to appeal, and was refused again. This year, he tried yet again. His application was refused by the local council, but it has now been allowed.
That seems a fairly typical pattern. Applicants who have been refused in the past are now resurrecting their proposals and trying again, because they believe that they will win on appeal. Alas, the figures suggest that they may well be right.
There is particular concern in the borough about applications for intensive flats and sheltered accommodation development in areas of predominantly low-density suburban housing. I have details of six such sites in the borough. In each case, the application for development was refused by the council; in each case, the decision has been overturned on appeal. The borough has a local plan adopted two years ago after a public inquiry. It incorporates the suggestions of the Department of the Environment inspector who conducted the inquiry, and the Department of the Environment was consulted throughout its compilation. The plan includes proposals relating to the pattern and number of dwellings to be built over a decade. However, because of what has been happening under the appeal system, we are already well ahead of those figures, and the character and amenities of parts of the area are being altered. The wishes of local people, residents' associations, councillors and, ultimately, the authority itself are being overturned.
The council wrote to the Department expressing concern at the trend. The reply from an official suggested that the increased number of successful appeals nationally corresponds to the increased rate of refusals by the authorities. That may be so nationally, but it is not so in Bromley. Between 1984 and 1986 there was no material increase in the number of refusals in Bromley, but the proportion of appeals allowed increased from 29 per cent. to 44 per cent.
I am bound to ask who is in charge of planning in Bromley. The council draws up a local plan, it seeks to control development according to it, and according to DOE guidelines and good planning practice, and it is continually undermined. It is not surprising that officers and councillors are becoming demoralised, and are

sometimes tempted simply to rubber-stamp applications even if they are inappropriate, because they feel that if they do not agree to them, they will in any case be allowed on appeal.
I have referred to the Chislehurst conservation area. There are a number of conservation areas in the borough, the most recently designated being in Bickley, which is also in my constituency. In an admirable document describing how it intends to control development, the council sent to each resident its policy for conservation areas. Representations have been made to me by my constituents asking me to support the council, and to defend the conservation area policy which it fears is likely to be endangered by the decisions of Department of the Environment inspectors.
It seems sad that my constituents, who are anxious to maintain the quality of their surroundings, are not looking to the Department for the protection of their environment, but are asking me to protect them from the Department. I plead with my hon. Friend the Minister to examine carefully how the appeal procedure is operated. Has there been a change of policy which the inspectors are implementing? Are the inspectors perhaps less diligent, or less sensitive? Are they misinterpreting departmental guidelines? I do not know the answers to those questions, but 44 per cent. of appeals being upheld must mean that something is wrong, and I urge my hon. Friend to put matters right.
There is a substantial area of green belt land in the borough, particularly in the constituency of my hon, Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has set out the Government's policy on the green belt on several occasions, most notably in a speech to a Confederation of British Industry's conference in October 1986. That policy was summarised succinctly in reply to a question that I tabled on 19 November 1986. The Minister said:
There is a general presumption aganst inappropriate development throughout the green belts.
I do not doubt that there is such a presumption, but that does not prevent applications from being made.
The whole of the London borough of Bromley is particularly concerned about a proposal that involves Hewitts farm, which is now a pick-it-yourself strawberry farm. The owner and Prudential Insurance are planning a massive regional shopping and leisure centre, comprising shopping malls, restaurants, bars, cinemas, sports facilities and a garden centre. That is utterly contrary to the borough's green belt policy, and the council quite rightly has refused the application. We await the almost inevitable appeal and all that that involves. It will be to no purpose, because the appeal will not be allowed. My hon. Friend the Minister surely cannot allow it. I do not expect my hon. Friend to comment on this application, for obvious reasons. However, it will be allowed only over the dead bodies of the four hon. Members who represent Bromley constituencies. Furthermore, it would open the door to similar developments all round the M25. The Government's green belt policy would be in ruins.
Even if the matter goes to appeal and is refused, there is nothing to stop another application being made. That is ridiculous. There is nothing to prevent you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or me, from making an application for anywhere in the green belt and sparking off the whole process of council consideration, refusal, appeal, and again refusal,


with all the costs that are involved and the generation of great local concern, resulting in public meetings and petitions—all to no purpose.
In the question to which I referred I asked my hon. Friend the Minister to
seek powers to enable him to designate certain green belt land as inviolable areas in respect of which he would not be prepared to entertain planning applications or appeals in relation thereto." — [Official Report, 19 November 1986; Vol. 105, c. 241–42.]
The reply was that it was not considered to be necessary to take such a power. I am asking my hon. Friend to think again. Surely it would be practicable to take such a power.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) is an ally. In an Adjournment debate on 13 July he made the very good point that if property developers
were told that there would never be an opportunity for them to have land banks in the green belt—because they would never be given the right to develop them—they might turn their ingenuity, enthusiasm and financial acumen to some of our inner-city areas of derelict land."—[Official Report, 13 July 1987; Vol. 199, c. 745.]
Surely it should be possible to designate certain parts of the green belt as inviolable for, say, 10 years, with a review thereafter. Potential developers would then be in no doubt about their position. They would not waste their time and energy and cause concern to others by submitting planning applications. The fears of my constituents and of all those who care about the green belt would then be put at rest.
On behalf of the people of Bromley, my message to my hon. Friend and to her erstwhile colleagues on Bromley council is that she should ensure as a general principle that appeal inspectors support and do not undermine a council's planning policy and that our green belt should be made safe from those who wish to despoil it.

Sir Philip Goodhart: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Does the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) have the consent of the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and the Minister to speak in the debate? I see that he does.

Sir Philip Coodhart: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on securing the debate. I wholly endorse his powerful and sensible speech. During the recent general election campaign, I walked around most of my constituency. I can well understand the anxiety that is felt by many of my constituents about some recent decisions that have been taken by Department of the Environment inspectors. Many such decisions, such as the one that allowed the Sunday market at Beckenham junction, have caused great annoyance and aggravation. My constituents fear that piecemeal decisions by inspectors are undermining sensible local planning policies. As my hon. Friend powerfully reminded us, in the three-year period 1984–86 there was no material increase in the number of applications that were rejected by Bromley council, yet the number of successful appeals has gone up from 29 per cent. to 44 per cent. Not surprisingly, during that period, the number of appeals doubled from 171 to 336.
What can he done? As the Minister knows, I have made two suggestions to her. The first suggestion is that she should hold regular meetings with hon. Members who

represent similar constituencies to discuss the implementation by inspectors of Department of the Environment guidelines. The second suggestion is that hon. Members should be allowed to play a more important role in the appeal procedure and that inspectors should be reminded that substantial weight should be given to their views when constituents' amenities are affected.
We have great confidence in the abilities and sensibilities of the new Minister, who once was a Bromley councillor. I am sure that she will effectively stop the destruction of pleasant neighbourhoods.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe): I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) for putting the issues before the House. I have listened most carefully to all the points that they have made about their concerns over certain aspects of the Government's planning policies as they affect the London borough of Bromley. I am pleased to be able to reply to the debate. As my hon. Friends have said, I retain a close interest in the affairs of the borough, having been a councillor in Bromley for three years. I do, of course, have a personal knowledge of some of the issues that have been raised, especially the developments adjacent to the ward that I represented on Bromley council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst has drawn attention to the pleasant environment that is enjoyed by the borough and the importance of the green belt to it. Bromley is most fortunate in having within its boundaries what is, I believe, the largest area of green belt of any of the London boroughs. From my own experience, I am well aware of the great value that Bromley people place on the lovely countryside in and around the borough. I also know how well managed the borough is. Within the context of the debate, Bromley is, for example, third in the London league in the speed of processing planning applications.
Over the past five years, Bromley has spent at or below the Government's expenditure guidelines. That prudence has allowed the council to benefit the ratepayers of Bromley with a local rate that has consistently been among the lowest in outer London. It is, of course, the quality of the countryside, coupled with the character of residential areas, which Bromley residents wish to protect. Inevitably, such a thriving area is under considerable pressure for development. Not surprisingly, others wish to share that prosperity, and the pressures for development are therefore intense. It is those pressures, and the apparent results of them, to which my hon. Friend has drawn my attention. Not only does the council aim to protect the countryside, but it has imaginative schemes for the enhancement of its built-up areas. My predecessor, Lord Skelmersdale, visited the borough last month to see the progress on the "Green and Clean" campaign. He was, I know, impressed by what he saw.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on the various planning decisions that have been issued or are in train. That would be quite improper. However, I should like to respond in general terms to the points that have been raised. If I fail to deal with any, I shall, of course, write to my hon. Friend about them.
I am aware of the considerable concern in Bromley about the increase in the number of appeals that are being


allowed. This is understandably seen by some as undermining the authority of the local planning authority. My hon. Friend asked a question on this subject only last December. I have also received correspondence on the same point from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham. Furthermore, the chief planner of the borough has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
It is a fact that since 1983 there has been a significant increase in the proportion of appeals allowed, not only in Bromley, but nationally. However, there has also been, in the relevant period, a marked increase in the rate at which local planning authorities refuse applications for planning permission — from 12·8 per cent. in 1983 to 14·9 per cent. in 1986. In absolute numbers, this amounts nationally to 11,000 more refusals a year.
To place those figures in their context, the House should know that in the same period planning applications increased in total by 14,000. There was no change in national planning policies or in development plan policies that would have justified that increase in the rate of refusal. The Government have no wish to undermine local authorities carrying out their responsibilities, but our inspectors have been taking these national policies into account, and have taken different views from local planning authorities in a large number of cases.
As far as refusal of planning permission in Bromley is concerned, the rate of refusal during 1984 to 1986 has been about six percentage points higher than in London and England as a whole. As my hon. Friend has said, it is true that there was no material increase in refusals in Bromley between 1984 and 1986, but Bromley's refusal rate rose from 17 and 15 per cent. in 1982 and 1983 to 21 and 22 per cent. in the following three years. So it is not surprising that the percentage of appeals allowed rose. However, it is now back in line with the national average.
We should also keep the increase in the percentage of appeals allowed in perspective. The applications permitted as a result of appeal represent less than 2 per cent. of the 350,000 or so planning permissions given each year. Some commentators allege that my Department's circular 14/85 was responsible for the increase, but this circular was no more than a simple reminder of the general presumption in favour of allowing applications for development, having regard to all material considerations, unless that development would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance. The principle is as old as the 1947 planning system and the key words were repeated from circulars issued in 1949 and 1953. The principle was again restated in 1985 in the White Paper "Lifting the Burden".
I note that Bromley council is concerned that the Department and inspectors are not taking proper account of the local plan in allowing appeals. That is not so. The White Papers "Lifting the Burden" and "Building Businesses … Nor Barriers" specifically referred to the need for development plans, and our consultation paper on the future of development plans equally emphasises the importance of such plans in our system of planning control. The latter said that they were a vital part of the framework for development control and that, while they are not prescriptive, they provide a firm basis for rational and consistent decisions on applications.
I do not want to understate the problems that face planning authorities. We face a considerable problem of reconciling throughout the south-east the pressures for housing on the one hand with the need to conserve the environment on the other. We all accept that there are difficult decisions to be taken on whether and where to allow development. The main vehicle for resolving these differences is the development plan, which is why we place such importance on streamlining.
In each appeal case, the inspector must carefully consider the development plan policies. I am well aware that Bromley is concerned that its plan is not accorded sufficient weight by inspectors, but I must underline that it is only one of the factors which must be weighed in the balance. An inspector will set aside the provisions of the plan only with good reason and he must give a clear explanation why he does so in his report. Similarly the views of local people are also given considerable weight in planning matters and, again, in giving his decision, the inspector must explain the account he has taken of them.
My hon. Friend asked about the objectors' right of appeal. It is certainly true that third parties do not have any right of appeal against a decision of the local planning authority to allow development. Applicants, on the other hand, do have a right of appeal against a refusal. This difference dates from the creation of the post-war planning system by the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. That Act substantially strengthened controls over the use and development of privately owned land. It took away many of the rights of the individual to develop his property as he wished. Yet within the modern planning system there has always been a presumption in favour of development. The local authority must be able to establish good reasons for preventing or interfering with a proposed development. For cases where the developer considered the authority's decision to be unreasonable, Parliament provided a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
A third party, on the other hand, lost no rights as a result of the 1947 Act, so no right of appeal was needed. However, he was given, and still enjoys, a right which he did not previously have—the right to make his views known to the elected local authority and to have them taken into account in the decision-making process.
I should like to turn now more specifically to the issue of development in the green belt. In particular, I am aware of the application for a major retail-leisure complex at Hewitt's farm, permission for which was refused by Bromley council on 24 March. From what I have already said, my hon. Friend will understand that I am unable to comment on the merits of this particular application lest I prejudice the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial role in determining any appeal that may come before him. Nevertheless, in general policy terms, the Government remain firmly committed to maintaining the green belt. This long-established policy was restated in my Department's circular 14 of 1984. The Government are not opposed to new methods of retailing and the benefits that modern retailing schemes can bring to the customer. But the Government have also made it clear that large retail stores simply do not belong in green belts. We have also made it clear that developers who pursue proposals for large scale retail developments in green belts to appeal and are unsuccessful may expect to have the costs of any inquiry awarded against them.
My hon. Friend has asked whether certain parts of the green belts should be designated as inviolate and that


planning applications should not be entertained in respect of such areas. This proposal raises a fundamental issue. Our planning system is founded upon the principle that each case—each planning application or appeal—should be considered on its merits. In green belts, and only in these areas, there is a presumption against inappropriate development. Duncan Sandys' historic circular 42/55 states:
Inside a Green Belt, approval should not be given, except in very special circumstances, for the construction of new buildings or for the change of use of existing buildings for purposes other than agriculture, sport, cemeteries, institutions standing in extensive grounds, or other uses appropriate to a rural area".
But my hon. Friend will realise that even in green belts certain forms of development have always been considered appropriate. There is, for example, no reason for preventing appropriate agricultural or sporting uses of green belt land. Moreover, there needs to be provision for allowing other development, in exceptional circumstances, as circular 14/84 and its predecessors have made clear.
I believe that there would also be considerable practical difficulties in pursuing the designation of absolute "no go" areas for development. Leaving aside the question of appropriate powers, there is the procedure for defining such special areas. It would be for the local planning authorities to identify the areas, through their structure and local plans, in the same way that they have brought forward proposals for green belts for the Secretary of State's approval. This would be a protracted process and I remind the House that, despite encouragement from Ministers, we still do not have detailed green belt boundaries adopted or approved for many areas. There would be the impact of such designations on other green belt areas—there would in effect be first and second-class green belt — and doubtless heated local debate about which should apply where. These are just a few of the issues which the creation of areas, without planning applications or new development, would raise.
The Government are not insensitive to the problems caused by the relentless pressures applied by some developers who seek to undermine our green belt policy, but we need to work within the framework of the existing planning system. I make no apology for not dealing with specific cases raised by my hon. Friend, but he will understand why. On the general matters, Bromley receives the same even-handed treatment from my Department as any other borough or district. I assure the House that each case is considered purely on its merits.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

That the draft Job Release Act 1977 (Continuation) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 28th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved. — [Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Question agreed to.

Herald of Free Enterprise

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the report of the formal investigation into the loss of the vessel Herald of Free Enterprise which capsized outside Zeebrugge harbour on 6 March this year. Mr. Justice Sheen was appointed the Wreck Commissioner to conduct the investigation, assisted by four assessors. He has today delivered the court's report. I have placed a copy in the Library.
I thought that the House would wish to have an immediate statement before we rose for the summer recess. However, I apologise, in particular to the Opposition, for the fact that I was unable to give them the usual notice of this statement. The judge has only just finished delivering his findings, and the alternative would have been no statement. I hope that the House will understand, and I apologise to the Opposition if, in any way, I have inconvenienced them by this course.
The court found that the Herald of Free Enterprise put to sea with her outer and inner bow doors fully open, and thereafter, as speed built up, water entered on to the vehicle deck in large quantities and destroyed her stability. The ship then capsized rapidly. Fortunately, the vessel sank in shallow water. Thanks to great efforts by the Belgian authorities and others, 350 people were rescued, but at least 188 lost their lives.
The court found that the capsize was the joint fault of the master, the chief officer, the assistant bosun, and of Townsend Car Ferries Ltd. at all levels of management. The court has suspended the certificate of the master for one year and of the chief officer for two years.
The court found that the vessel's construction conformed with the relevant statutory requirements. She possessed a valid passenger ship safety certificate, and she carried life-saving equipment in excess of the minimum statutory requirements. However, the court made severe criticisms of the management of Townsend Car Ferries Ltd. and in particular the failure of the company to give clear orders about the duties of the officers on the Zeebrugge run: this contributed greatly to the cause of the disaster. The report draws attention to failures on the part of the management of the company to give attention to warnings from the masters of the vessels in their fleet, or to suggestions of ways of improving safety. In particular, the company did not give proper attention to complaints that ships had proceeded to sea carrying passengers in excess of the permitted numbers, to suggestions for the fitting of warning lights on the bridge to indicate whether the bow and stern doors were open, and to problems over reading the draughts of the vessels. However, the report notes that a new top management has since been appointed to the company, which has taken to heart the gravity of the catastrophe and has shown a determination to put its house in order.
The report contains a number of recommendations for measures to improve the safety of passenger ro-ro ferries. These are divided into those for immediate action. those for action in the near future and those for action in the longer term. Many are of major importance. The House will appreciate that in the short time available I have not been able to reach a firm view on all of them. I will be discussing the report and its recommendations with


representatives of the ferry operators and port industry next week. However, there are certain measures that I can now announce.
I am straightaway undertaking the necessary statutory consultations to make mandatory the following three items: first, the fitting of the indicator lights to show the position of superstructure doors; secondly, the fitting of closed circuit television monitors for surveillance of the car deck and to enable the position of the car deck doors to be monitored from the bridge; and, thirdly, the provision of self-contained emergency lighting units of the type proposed in the report. I propose that these requirements will be applied to all ro-ro passenger vessels operating to or from ports in the United Kingdom, regardless of flag. Next, I am consulting the industry, as a matter of urgency, on three further measures recommended in the report: first, the fitting of draught gauges; secondly, the fitting of load indicators; thirdly, the design of windows, including the use of toughened or laminated glass.
The number of passengers on board the Herald of Free Enterprise at the time of the disaster was within the permitted maximum, but, as I have mentioned, the report draws attention to a worrying number of reported incidents of ferries carrying passengers in excess of the permitted maximum. The court considers that it would be possible to introduce a system under which every passenger has a boarding card. The number of cards issued for each voyage would correspond to the permitted maximum number of passengers, which would automatically avoid the risk of carrying excess numbers. I shall be pursuing this proposal with the ferry operators.
The court found that on her departure from Zeebrugge the Herald was probably significantly overloaded as to weight, although the overload was not in any way a cause of the casualty. The report draws attention to problems in measuring the weight of vehicles on ferries, and in identifying the effect of the distribution of the load on the draught and trim of the vessel. In my discussions with port authorities and ferry operators, I shall be pursuing the suggestion in the report for making greater use of weighbridges for improving information supplied to masters about the weight of vehicles loading on to ferries. In addition, I shall examine with the industry the problems which can arise when the design of a berth makes it physically impossible for a vessel to close its loading doors before it has pulled away. As recommended by the report, my Department will also conduct an analysis of the weight of long-distance coaches.
In his statement on 9 March immediately following the disaster, my right hon. Friend and predecessor announced that the Department's surveyors were embarking on a programme of checks on roll-on/roll-off ferries in United Kingdom ports to ensure that all loading door mechanisms were in working order and that officers and crew were aware of the correct operating procedures. I can announce today that the arrangements will be extended to include random checks on ferries to ensure that statutory requirements about loading, stability and passenger numbers are being observed.
In its recommendations for the longer term, the court recommended detailed investigations and model tests with a view to increasing the stability of ro-ro passenger ferries, and to examine the implications of the provision of

bulkheads on vehicle decks. My Department is therefore making available an additional £1 million to support an enhanced programme of research into this difficult area.
As part of the continuing process of improving safety standards, the stability regulations for passenger ferries were revised in 1980. Although the Herald was built in accordance with the 1980 standards, the report draws attention to ferries built to those previous standards, which date from 1965, and suggests that those which cannot meet the 1980 standards should be phased out. Although there is no reason for undue concern about the safety of these older vessels, my Department will reassess their stability standards against the standards adopted in 1980, and in the light of this assessment decide what further action is necessary.
During the hearings different views were expressed about whether the act of taking a vessel to sea with its bow doors open constituted an offence under the Merchant Shipping Acts. The court was clearly of the opinion that no statutory offence had been committed. This disaster has demonstrated the appalling consequences that can follow when a ferry proceeds to sea with its bow doors open, and in my view this should be a criminal offence. I shall therefore include in the Merchant Shipping Bill, which I intend to introduce in Parliament after the recess, a provision to strengthen the law in this respect.
Mr. Justice Sheen, his assessors, and others who participated in the investigation are to be congratulated on producing such a comprehensive report so rapidly. I will ensure that my Department takes forward with equal urgency further action following consideration of the recommendations. I am sure that the whole House will join me in once again expressing sympathy for the injured and bereaved and will share my determination that no effort should be spared in making sure that a disaster of this kind shall not happen again.

Mr. Peter Snape: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that Mr. Justice Sheen's report amplifies a horrifying state of affairs? When the Herald of Free Enterprise left the quayside at Zeebrugge that fateful night, the captain had been told that there were fewer than 1,300 passengers aboard, whereas a later count showed 1,550. The ferry started to sea with the bow doors open, and not for the first time. Ship's rules show that the captain was to assume that the doors were closed until otherwise informed. The captain had only three officers, instead of the usual four, with the result that Chief Officer Sable had two jobs to do in different places—one at the bow doors and one on the bridge. Some lorries on the vehicle deck were overloaded, and others were carrying illegal chemicals, including cyanide. Vehicle drivers were habitually allowed to remain in their cabs. The vessel was bow down because of an unknown quantity of water in the bow ballast tank No. 14.
The Herald of Free Enterprise was a latterday Titanic, wrecked on an iceberg of Department of Transport indifference, managerial incompetence and working methods that were apparently designed only to shorten turn around times, regardless of risks to passengers and crew.
We believe that the recommendation to suspend two crew members is deplorable. The two men worked to arrangements that had been condoned or approved by management. Those same arrangements were probably adhered to by most other principal officers in the


Townsend Thoresen fleet. Neither the captain, nor the chief officer, nor any other member of the crew was under the influence of alcohol. At no time did they disobey company instructions. The pleas of Captain Lewry and other senior officers for better arrangements, such as warning lights on the bridge, were consistently ignored by the company. These men are the victims of an incompetent safety management system. The company's management is responsible under law for the safety of the ship and for the people who are on board. The company, and not those officers, should therefore he brought to account. It has become clear during the inquiry that the company lacked competent safety management and directions. Under law, the company has a legal duty to provide safe systems of work, a safe place of work, the necessary training, and the necessary instructions, information and supervision to its staff. On all those counts the company was negligent.
I turn, if I may, to the part played by the right hon. Gentleman's Department. The Department of Transport has a duty to ensure the safety of ships and persons on board. That duty, over many years and under many Governments, has been neglected. So far as I am aware — the report does not disagree — at no time were unannounced inspections made for the purpose of ensuring that the ship was loaded within the required limits for passengers and cargo, that safe working arrangements applied, that prohibited, dangerous goods were not carried and that records of the ship's draught were not being falsified.
The Department of Transport is consistently reducing the number of inspectors who are charged with responsibility for ensuring that such breaches do not take place. Over many years, the Department has taken a leisurely view of its responsibilities. It has failed to create a climate in which proper safety standards are observed on the cross-Channel fleet. The Herald of Free Enterprise demonstrated that, left to their own devices, shipowners are less stringent with themselves on safety matters than they should be, and the right hon. Gentleman's Department was content to let that state of affairs continue.
The report has something to say about the issue of the design of ro-ro ferries. The report shows, and previous inquiries held by the Secretary of State's Department show, that ro-ro ships that take on water to the main vehicle deck or its equivalent sink within 10 minutes. The Herald of Free Enterprise sank in less than two minutes. The report acknowledges that there are no specific design regulations for ro-ro ships. The governing regulations are derived from those that apply to conventional cargo ships, which are subdivided above and below the water line.
The report points to the fact that the Department of Transport has had previous warnings. The court of inquiry into the loss of the European Gateway recommended that
consideration should be given to catering for the possibility that a vessel may have to be abandoned when listing to more than 15 degrees.
Preliminary research was completed in 1985. Neither the Government nor the shipowners would put up the money for that research to continue.
The present position is that research is undertaken in conjunction with the General Council of British Shipping. So far, the research has been conducted by two consultancy companies—Three Quays, a subsidiary of P and O, and Hart Fenton, a subsidiary of Sealink. In evidence to the court of inquiry the Sealink consultants

said that there was nothing inherently wrong with passenger ro-ro design. It is clear to us, however, that design research is needed. That research must be independent of the shipping companies and entirely Government financed. It should also be conducted over a sufficient period for its conclusions to be properly validated.
I wish to put a number of questions to the Secretary of State. Will the Government ensure an early debate in the House on ferry safety? What action do the Government intend to take towards the rapid negotiation of EEC agreements on ferry loading and safety? In the meantime, will they act unilaterally in relation to ferries using British ports'? Will the Government institute proper vehicle weight checks for all lorries at ferry ports? Would riot the computerised weighbridges readily available throughout the world not only assist ferry captains and operators properly to assess ships' loads but have the spin-off benefit of eradicating the dangerous menace of overloaded lorries on Britain's roads?
What action do the Government intend to take to ensure that ferry companies hold accurate and complete passenger logs? Will the Government now ensure proper segregation of passengers and vehicles on ro-ro ferries? What improvements do the Government intend to institute in ferry design to reduce the rate of accidents? Will they insist on changes in ships' working practices, and how will those rules be enforced?
Will the Government take action to ensure that the latest jumbo ferries are fitted with a proper system to predict and check their stability, so as to reassure intending passengers that ships such as the newly launched and quaintly named Pride of Dover do not take 2,300 people to a premature and watery grave? Will the Minister confirm that the Taskmaster system has been in service since 1982, but has not yet been installed in any ro-ro vessel of the Townsend Thoresen fleet?
The inquiry has been held into a tragedy as avoidable as it was horrific. It is the Secretary of State's duty to ensure that the cosy world in which the Department has colluded with indifferent ship owners to ensure that turn-around speed and company receipts took precedence over passenger and crew safety is no longer allowed to continue. The time is long overdue for the Department to carry out its legal duties in terms of maritime safety.
The Department's call for action against crew members but not against the company is deplorable. The Secretary of State must assure the House today that the questions and recommendations that I have put will be acted upon forthwith.

Mr. Channon: I shall do my utmost to answer the questions put to me by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who has raised matters which I take extremely seriously, as does the whole House. He will forgive me if I do not accept many of his criticisms of the Department, but we can perhaps debate those matters fully on another occasion. The arrangement of a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I shall certainly draw his attention to today's exchanges and I am sure that he will give sympathetic consideration to the case so cogently made by the hon. Gentleman.
The treatment of the crew members is a matter for the court, not for me. Mr. Justice Sheen and the court reached that conclusion. It is not a matter for me or for the Department.

Mr. Snape: Yes, it is.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I set up the inquiry, but the judge makes the decisions. It is the judge who decides whether a master's certificate should be suspended or withdrawn. That is nothing to do with me and I have no locus whatsoever in the matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the situation — I have checked it extremely carefully.
I have already explained the situation in relation to the company. The view expressed by the court, not by me, is that no statutory offence has been committed. That is the view of the court, not mine.
I tried in my opening remarks to cover some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. The judge has divided his recommendations into three groups. Clearly, those of most immediate concern are those that he recommends for immediate action. I am undertaking the necessary statutory consultations to make mandatory the following three items which cover sonic of the points that the hon. Gentleman made: the fitting of indicator lights, closed-circuit television monitors, and self-contained emergency lighting units.
I am consulting the industry about weight checks, and the question of separating passengers from vehicles is being examined carefully. I am doubling the funds available for research into the important matter of ferry design. That will cover the whole question of stability and all the other technical points that are contained in the report and about which, with respect, I do not think it is wise for the House to form a final view until we have had more time to study and know exactly what the technical situation is.
As the report shows, it is extremely important that companies that are operating ferries, or indeed any other type of ship, should have proper operating practices, so that the masters of those ships know where they stand, and so that they are responsible for their ships. Company managements should lay down proper operating practices. The hon. Gentleman made severe criticisms of the management of Townsend. Indeed, so did the judge. What the House must, in fairness, also take into account, because it is extremely important that the public should understand this, is that the judge specifically went out of his way of say that the new management that has taken over— [Interruption.] The House must understand that there are new managers. That is not my view; that is the view of the court. That is what the court said.
If I have not covered all the other matters that the hon. Gentleman raised, I shall certainly examine them in great detail and speed, and be in touch with him.

Mr. John Prescott: The report is an indictment of the sloppy practices that have gone on for many years between shipping companies and the Department in defining safety regulations for vessels. It has been encouraged by the deplorable practice of promising owners that they would not be prosecuted if

they co-operated with inquiries. The Government have acted against the crew members and officers of vessels, as in this case, while companies have got off scot-free.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, while he has repeated the court's claim that it is not a statutory offence to proceed to sea with the doors open—the Merchant Shipping Act 1984 does not say that that is an offence—it is clearly an offence to send a ship to sea in an unseaworthy condition? To have open bow doors is clearly an unseaworthy condition, and the death of 188 people bears testimony to that.
The Secretary of State is not prepared to face his responsibilities and prosecute the company and seeks to hide behind the court in respect of the Merchant Shipping Act 1984, but his own regulations, placed before the House in 1984, place an obligation on companies to provide safe places of work and safe working practices. Any breach of those 1984 regulations is a criminal offence. On the basis of the report, it is possible to prosecute the company. Therefore, will the Secretary of State now face up to his obligations and prosecute the company, instead of hiding behind the fact that it has a new management? Will he prosecute the company for committing this offence?

Mr. Channon: With respect, it is not my view, but the view of the court. I quote the words used in the judge's findings:
The court is able to deal with this question on this occasion because it is clearly of the opinion that no statutory offence has been committed.
The court has taken the view that no offence has been committed. That is why I propose to introduce in the autumn specific measures under the Merchant Shipping Act to change the position. I should have thought that the House would welcome the fact that we are taking an early opportunity to make the law completely clear on this point. The officers are not being prosecuted. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands. The court decides whether, in its view, there has been negligence by the master or the officers. On this occasion the court decided that there was negligence by the master and the chief officer, and it has taken steps that it thinks right. I am prepared to face up to my responsibilities, and what I have announced this afternoon is probably the most comprehensive list of changes and improvements in safety that has ever been announced from this Dispatch Box.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Can we be clear about this? Is my right hon. Friend saying that it is not a statutory offence to take to sea a ship that is unseaworthy, but he proposes to legislate to make it so?

Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the vessel itself was not unseaworthy. The court found that it sailed with its doors open, and that was the serious situation that caused this appalling disaster. The court takes the view that no statutory offence has been committed. I shall change the law to make sure that in future it will be a statutory offence.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State may be trying to escape liability on the issue of criminal offence, but he repeated the judgment of the court that the fault lay with named officers and with the company. The country will not understand his attitude unless he admits to the House that Townsend Thoresen was grossly negligent. The country will want to hear what action is being taken against the company for that negligence.
Is it, as it was suggested, because the Department fears that some of its officials will be seen to have been negligent that it is not willing to request and initiate action? I fear that unless action is taken, and unless the Secretary of State concedes that gross negligence occurred as a result of the behaviour of the company and possibly that of the Department, the legacy of this terrible tragedy will be that those who died paid the price of free enterprise. That will be the motto of this incident.

Mr. Channon: It must be clear from my statement and from the judge's findings that he considered Townsend Thoresen to have been negligent. I have already said so in my statement. If I had found that there had been criticism of my Department which showed that the Department or senior officials had been negligent, I would not have hesitated to take the appropriate action. There is no such suggestion in the report. I have already explained fully to the House the judge's view of the company's management at the time that this took place. I am glad to say that he does not take that view of the present management.

Mr. John Ward: Do not the remarks already made reflect the importance of studying the whole report and considering it carefully before making comments? I shall concentrate on one small but important aspect of what I have already heard. My constituency has a roll-on/ roll-off ferry. We have sophisticated weighing machines, but they are used only on a voluntary basis. There is evidence to suggest that drivers of overloaded vehicles use other ports without such sophisticated weighing devices, or where they are inoperative. Would not one small but important aspect of this inquiry be that there should be compulsory weighing of vehicles whenever entering or leaving ports, and preferably, by agreement with the EEC, that such weighing should take place at the departure point on the continent as well?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend makes a fair point with which most hon. Members will agree, that the report is long and needs detailed study. The House will wish to come back to the subject. We should study it with care before corning to final conclusions about many of its points.
I shall be pursuing the greater use of weighbridges for improving the information supplied to masters about the weight of vehicles loading on to ferries. I shall be examining that as a matter of urgency in the discussions with port authorities and ferry operations that I shall carry out next week. I make it clear that that is an important point, but it was not the cause of this disaster.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: With respect to the ship's rules and regulations, if there was no system of positive reporting required by the company, why is the company not wholly responsible for what happened? Does the report go into that? Secondly, does the report deal with the terms and conditions of service of the officers and men? How secure was their employment? Were there any terms whereby renewal of employment was required at short notice or in the short term? If that matter was not dealt with by the report, will the Minister make inquiries?

Mr. Channon: The report did not go into the latter point raised by the hon. Gentleman, or if it did, it was not dealt with in any great detail. I shall, of course, make inquiries into that matter.
With regard to the responsibility for the disaster, in the final section of his report, the judge answers questions submitted to him. He was asked:
What caused the Herald to capsize? How many lives were lost?
The questions raised other important points. They included:
Was the capsize caused or contributed to by the fault of any person or persons, and if so whom and in what respect?
The answers were as follows:
Yes, by the faults of the following: Mr. Mark Victor Stanley, Mr. Leslie Sable, Captain David Lewry, Townsend Car Ferries Limited at all levels from the board of directors through the managers of marine departments down to the junior superintendents.
As to the respects in which each of those people was guilty of cause or at fault, the whole report must be studied to get all the details.

Mr. John Wheeler: My right hon. Friend is right to tell the House that the report must be considered very carefully. However, the interests of the nation require that justice should be seen to be done. Will he assure the House that all the facts and evidence relating to this appalling affair are examined by the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions as an additional safeguard?

Mr. Channon: I certainly cannot object to my hon. Friend's suggestion. However, I would mislead the House if I did not remind it that the court has clearly come to the view, and states in black and white, that it believes that no statutory offence has been committed.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the Secretary of State concede that our thanks are due to Mr. Justice Sheen for the work that he and his colleagues have undertaken in bringing to light the unhappy events surrounding the disaster? Those of us who have taken time — there may be many, although I am not sure — to attend the public inquiry will feel, as I felt, that it was one of the most horrific experiences of our lives. It was particularly horrific for me as a former seagoing engineer.
I draw the Secretary of State's attention to page 22, paragraph 10.3, of the report, which examines the background. It states:
In October 1983 the assistant bosun of the Pride had fallen asleep and had not heard 'Harbour Stations' being called, with the result that he neglected to close both the bow and stern doors on the sailing of the vessel from No. 5 berth, Dover.
A general instruction issued in July 1984 which prescribed that it was the duty of the officer loading the main vehicle deck, G deck, to ensure that the bow doors were 'secure when leaving port'.
Was that incident reported to the Secretary of State's Department? If so, what action was taken? Some of us may be guilty of trying to be wise after the event, but it appears as though someone was not wise prior to the event.
I am not sure whether I follow some of my colleagues with regard to the responsibilities of the master and the officers of the ship. However, they have been punished in the working and public domains. They will bear the scars for the rest of their lives. Because of the withdrawal of certificates for one year or two years, I doubt whether these gentlemen will ever go to sea again.
However, what of the company? If anything is written into the history of the merchant service, it should be paragraph 14.1 of the report, which states:
At first sight the faults which led to the disaster were those of the aforesaid errors of omission on the part of the


Master, Chief Officer and assistant bosun, and also the failure by Captain Kirkby to issue and enforce clear orders. But a full investigation into the circumstances of the disaster leads inexorably to the conclusion that the underlying or cardinal faults lay higher up in the Company. The Board of Directors did not appreciate their responsibility for the safe management of their ships. They did not apply their minds to the question: What orders should be given for the safety of our ships? The dirctors did not have any proper—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unfair not to ask a question. I appreciate that there has not been an opportunity to read the report.

Mr. Douglas: I appreciate your stricture, Mr. Speaker. The paragraph continues:
From top to bottom the body corporate was infected with the disease of sloppiness.
What does the Minister propose to do and what avenues are available to ensure that the company and the people who were truly responsible are called to account?

Mr. Channon: First, the July 1984 incident was not reported to my Department. If it had been, appropriate action would have been taken. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has read the telling quotations which appear in paragraph 14. I have already made clear to the House that the judge has been extremely scathing about the management of Townsend. I am sure that the House will wish to study the report in full, it being difficult to scrutinise it adequately in a short time. We have had the report for only a short time and with respect I think that it is unwise of the House to press too hard on issues which few of us have had the chance properly to examine. The management is severely criticised in the report but there is no question of a criminal offence. It is extremely important to understand that the management concerned is no longer in charge of the company. That must be a safeguard for the travelling public.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend do two things quickly? First, will he take further legal advice on whether it is an offence to take a ship with a hole in it to sea? Secondly, will he immediately request all ferry companies to institute a boarding card system as from 1 August, bearing in mind that that is the height of the holiday season?

Mr. Channon: I am seeing the ferry companies next week, and I shall discuss that issue with them. The boarding card suggestion is an important one, but it would not have prevented the disaster. The House and the country must understand that the disaster was caused because a ship sailed with its doors open and that steps are being taken to ensure that that can never happen again. That is the crucial issue in the short term. I have already explained the measures that I am already setting in hand, which I believe are far-reaching, and I think that it will be realised that the most energetic steps are being taken to protect people's safety on board ferries. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that I have already taken the best legal advice that is available.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Secretary of State agree that over the past few years the number of inspectors has been reduced in his Department? Does he agree further that the frequency of inspections has

decreased, with the result that there has been an increase in sloppiness? Does he accept that his Department has some part or blame to share in this appalling disaster?

Mr. Channon: I am advised that the frequency of inspections has not decreased. However, I shall check what the hon. Gentleman has said and write to him about the matter. It is an extremely important issue. Having been Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry for only six weeks, I intend in future to make sure that we have an adequate system to ensure that the House is fully satisfied about future arrangements in this area.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I welcome the Government's response to the report, especially the proposal for extra funding for the research into and design of roll-on/roll-off ferries, but I find it somewhat odd that my right hon. Friend has not seen fit to condemn the company for its part in the responsibility for this tragedy. Whatever we think about the merits of the Channel tunnel, it is in British interests that there should be as many efficient, cheap and safe ferry crossings to the continent as possible. While we must ensure that there is never a repetition of this tragedy, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind Britain's long-term interests?

Mr. Channon: Of course I shall, and I entirely share my hon. Friend's views. He says that I have not condemned the company, but I do not think that any Minister could have made more scathing comments about the company's management. That echoes what the judge said in his report. I am sure that there is common ground in the House about the necessity for the greatest possible number of routes, and the safest possible routes, across the Channel — whether they are by ferry, by the Channel tunnel or by any other means — and I shall do my utmost to achieve that.

Mr. Frank Cook: Leaving aside all the legalistic bobbing and weaving, will the Secretary of State agree that this is exactly the sort of subject for the methods and discipline of the diagnostic engineer? Does he accept that diagnostic engineers have been saying for years that such an accident was waiting to happen—that a car deck without bulkheads and weirplates, and with water swilling around, was guaranteed to produce such an accident, regardless of how many or how few people were on board? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the one legacy that he will leave us of his tenure of office is the introduction of regulations to ensure that any ferry using a British port will have provision similar to the provision in the car parks under the House to protect the property of hon. Members, which is sometimes stuck there for two or three years on end? No threat to mankind is involved there. Will the Secretary of State ensure that regulations are introduced which make certain that no swilling of water on ferries can possibly happen again?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. He will recall from my statement that the court recommends in the longer term that detailed research should be carried out into increasing the stability of ro-ro passenger ferries, and that the implications of the provision of bulkheads on vehicle decks should be examined. That is my policy. I have already announced that I am doubling the amount of research available on the matter, and I shall keep the hon. Gentleman in touch with progress.

Mr. Terry Dicks: How can negligence at officer level be an offence, while negligence at company level is not? Most people in this country cannot understand why the company is still being allowed to sail ferries across the Channel. May I ask my right hon. Friend to do something different from what he suggested, and to take to himself and his Department powers to license ferry operators, rather than just looking at the seaworthiness of ships? If he had had that power at the time of the accident, Townsend Thoresen ferries could have been taken off the sea, and he would have been empowered to ensure that they never sailed again. The people have the right to know the truth, whether public or private enterprise is involved. They want to see the management of Townsend Thoresen punished, and I think that the sooner the company is closed down in one way or another, the better it will be.

Mr. Channon: Let me deal first with the question of licensing. The arrangements for ships are very different from those for aeroplanes and other forms of transport. The House will wish to consider whether we should go down that road; it has far-reaching implications, and I am not prepared at one hour's notice to give a definite answer. Licensing ferry operators would be a complete change in our marine shipping law, which has existed through many Governments and many centuries. But I shall consider my hon. Friend's point.
I well understand my hon. Friend's views about the treatment of the master and, as he sees it, the treatment of the company. According to the court, neither has committed a criminal offence. The court has found—I am not talking about my findings—that the master was guilty of negligence in exercising his master's certificate, and it is for that that he has been suspended for a year.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: What is the Secretary of State's personal message today to the buccaneers of free enterprise at Townsend Thoresen who will for ever be remembered as merchants of death?

Mr. Channon: I do not wish to use the hon. Gentleman's language. This was a terrible disaster, and there is, I hope. reasonably common ground in the House on why it happened. Certainly, the report is very clear about the cause: the accident was due to a combination of factors, which the report outlines in detail. The company and, I am afraid, some of the crew were partially responsible. It is a terrible disaster in the history of the sea, and the management of that company is no longer in charge.

Mr. Harry Creenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I shall never forget the agony of some of my constituents whose children died in this tragedy? I was glad to hear him say that he sympathises with the bereaved. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that many of those who appeared in the inquiry continue to be extremely ill, particularly psychologically ill, and that that is perhaps irreversible? What will be done for them?

Mr. Channon: The House knows that the Government have already made a very large contribution to the disaster fund. Other compensation measures are available. I shall write to my hon. Friend on that very important point. I share his distress at the appalling situation in which many people still find themselves, either because of the loss of

friends or relatives or because they are still very ill after the appalling disaster. I shall, of course, sympathetically consider anything that can be done to help them further.

Mr. David Young: Will the Secretary of State take on board the fact that many fair-minded people will believe that the crew members have been used as a scapegoat to cover the omissions of the company? Will he reiterate that, although crew members may have been punished for sins of commission, the sins of omission by the company were far more serious? While we are waiting for his legislation, what message will he give to the other companies that indulge in bad practices? What warning will he give to them, and will he make the action against them retrospective?

Mr. Channon: I very much hope that the hon. Member does not believe that other companies continue to indulge in bad practices. If he does, I hope that he will give me evidence about it straight away so that I may investigate it at once. My inspectors have already carried out the requisite checks, and I am satisfied that no ship will ever again sail under similar circumstances. The House was told some months ago that the inspectors had been carrying out additional checks. It is important that people should understand that action has already been taken. I have announced a programme for future action and I shall he meeting the companies next week.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will press hard for a full debate on this issue when the House reassembles in the autumn. I have not yet had an opportunity to read the report in full, but it reveals neglect by Townsend Thoresen that verges on the criminal. Townsend Thoresen has brought shame on the British merchant marine, not just as a result of this horrific incident but as a result of many years of slovenly, incompetent management. Many of my constituents sail regularly on cross-Channel ferries. They will be dismayed that this company is still allowed to operate ferries. They will be even more dismayed if my right hon. Friend cannot promise that action will be taken against the company. It is not good enough to say that the company has a few new managers. The management is obviously rotten to the core, and the people of this country expect really tough action to be taken by the Minister and the Department.

Mr. Channon: As to my hon. Friend's point about the need for a debate on the subject, I sense that in all quarters of the House there is a desire for a debate. I have already said that I shall consult my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the matter, and he has assured me that he will consider it sympathetically. Therefore, I hope that before long I shall be able to meet my hon. Friend's point.
A debate would provide a better opportunity to discuss the matter. Hon. Members will then have had an opportunity to study the report. It is no one's fault that there has been no opportunity to study it. The choice I had to make was either to make a statement now, when no hon. Member has had a chance to read the report, or to allow the House to go into a three-month recess without my having made a statement. I took the view that the House would prefer me to make a statement today.
As hon. Members have not had a chance to study the report, I hope that they will consider carefully what they are saying. I have already explained to the House that if


criminal offences were involved, people would be prosecuted, but the court has taken the view that no criminal offences are involved. I explained to the House many months ago that the formal investigation mechanism makes it extremely difficult for prosecutions to take place. It is unprecedented for there to be a prosecution after a formal investigation.

Mr. Prescott: No, it is not.

Mr. Channon: If the hon. Gentleman has a precedent, I shall be very glad to have a look at it, but I am advised that there are no precedents. [Interruption.] I have checked carefully, but if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary I should like to look at it. It is a very important point. It makes me wonder whether our regulatory machinery and the conduct of the investigations that I inherited is the best way to proceed.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I take up the point just made by the Secretary of State. If there is to be a debate, hon. Members will have had an opportunity to study the report. Today, will hon. Members please ask questions and not repeat the points that have already been made by other hon. Members?

Mr. Max Madden: Is the epitaph of the tragedy that profit prevailed over safety? Why did it take the deaths of so many people to persuade the Department to take the action that it was pressed to take for a long time? Will the Secretary of State understand that many people believe that the captain and crew have been made scapegoats and that the company has been protected, as a major contributor to the Conservative party?

Mr. Channon: I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will regret that remark. I should have thought that it is the sort of issue in regard to which, on normal occasions, both sides of the House would be united in trying to find ways of going forward to make sure that something like this never occurs again. I have been extremely scathing in my remarks about the company, and in doing so I have echoed what the judge said. I have announced measures that I shall take with the greatest urgency to make sure that something like this cannot occur again. I hope to have the united support of the House in that. That is the way in which I shall proceed.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Looking to the future, when my right hon. Friend considers what recommendations should be put into practice, will he look at three matters? First, he talked about the tightening up of company operating practices. Is there a clear case for a statutory code which will apply to all companies and which will have criminal penalties if they are not carried out? For instance, I refer to the criminal penalties in regard to health and safety at work. We should look at that matter. Secondly, I refer to random inspections without warning. We must make sure that they take place and that the companies do not know that they are happening. Thirdly, I refer to the lessons that we learnt about rescue co-ordination during the rescue. As I understand it, the rescue services of both countries acted quickly and saved many lives as a result of their co-ordination.
In my own part of the world, different ferries operate on the Irish sea—a much wider area. Can we be assured that proper co-ordination is taking place in all ports and on all sea routes, that contingency plans exist, and that practices take place on a regular basis?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend raised three extremely important points. I shall examine the possibility of a statutory code of company operating practices, but I do not wish to give an answer about it this afternoon. It will be extremely relevant to proceedings on the Merchant Shipping Bill when it comes before the House later this year. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend said. Perhaps he would like to be in touch with me about it.
We shall have more random inspections. It is important not only to have more random inspections but to have inspections of all parts of ships, not simply areas to which only passengers can go. There is some conflict between making random and covert inspections and allowing inspectors to get into all areas of ships where, normally, only crew members are allowed to go.
The rescue co-ordination worked extremely well during the tragedy. The only point that arose concerned helicopter noise. My hon. Friend may wish to read the section relating to helicopters when he has a chance to study the report. Some small improvements may be effected in that regard. I shall certainly consider the points that he made about rescue co-ordination throughout the United Kingdom. Of course, we are reviewing that matter at present.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Secretary of State aware that concern has been expressed over many years about the lack of bulkheads on large deck areas on roll-on/roll-off ferries? Is he also aware that, on ocean-going container vessels, it is common for waterproof bulkheads to cross decks to prevent just the kind of accident that happened at Zeebrugge? Will the Secretary of State assure the House — as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) asked—that the investigations into ferry design will be independent of ferry operators and shipping companies, will be financed only by Government, and that a report will quickly be furnished? Will the Secretary of State ensure that the necessary design changes are introduced immediately to prevent a similar accident happening on cross-Channel ferries? Obviously, shipping operators on trans-Atlantic lines recognised that danger a long time ago.

Mr. Channon: I shall certainly examine the hon. Gentleman's point. Conditions for crossing the Atlantic are different from those for cross-Channel operations and requirements may prove to be different in practice. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have announced a programme of research into ferry design and doubled the funds that are available for that. I am not sure how quick — [Interruption.] No, I have had this job for only six weeks. This afternoon I have announced measures that will take us further along that road than anyone else. I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman's considered points are carefully examined.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Secretary of State has said that 180 people lost their lives on that night. Can he advise the House of the number of people who have since died as a result of Zeebrugge? Those of us who have


been in the Merchant Navy and who have been involved in shipbuilding and ship design have known for many years that the initial design of those ships was likely to lead to disaster. The Secretary of State said that it was the fact that the bow doors were open that caused the disaster. However, even if the bow doors were open the ship might not have overturned if there had been internal bulkheads. That is the key to this issue and the Secretary of State should make that his immediate priority and should not concentrate on other matters, which could be dealt with simply.

Mr. Channon: I shall examine what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not think that that is what the judge found.

Mr. Ross: What would the judge know about the design of the ship?

Mr. Channon: He is the Admiralty judge. He is the one expert—[Interruption.] If anyone can express a view on this, it is the Admiralty judge, supported by four expert assessors. With respect, I should have thought that that judge is as likely to know as anyone else in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman's comments were not the view of the judge, but that does not mean that I shall not consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.
I am afraid that I do not have the figure for those who have died since the tragic disaster, but if I can find out, I shall get in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the Secretary of State introduce retrospective legislation when he introduces the other measures that he put before the House so that action can be taken against Townsend Thoresen, and in future against firms that commit similar practices?

Mr. Channon: I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's comments. However, he must face up to the fact that, as I said a few moments ago, that there has never been any prosecution after a formal investigation of this type in history.

Mr. Peter Pike: With respect, will the Secretary of State accept his own advice, and will he and his Department study the report in greater depth? I accept that we have not yet had sufficient time to consider it, but it contains a serious condemnation of the management of Townsend Thoresen, and it will seem to the public an absolute outrage if action cannot be taken against that company.
Will the Secretary of State assure us that, if he reconsiders the report and finds some way of taking legal action against the company, that action will be taken? Will he ensure that the new procedures that are used for embarkation and boarding in this country, where regulations are already tighter than in other countries, are enforced in continental ports, which at present are much more relaxed when compared with the new regulations that are in operation at Dover and at other ports here?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should study the report in much greater depth than we have so far had the opportunity to do—that includes my Department and myself. We have done our best to make an initial judgment of the issues that we should take forward with the greatest urgency, and I announced those to the House this afternoon. Yes, we shall consider the new

procedures, and if we think that the procedures in continental ports need changing —that would require negotiations—I shall consider how that can be achieved.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Secretary of State accept that many people outside the House will see his statement as conniving at making two officers the scapegoats for this horrific tragedy, while the directors walk away from the offence absolutely scot free because they happened to get out of the company conveniently in time to escape any of the consequences? Was it a lack of inspectors in his Department — the Government have made repeated claims that they are sacking as many civil servants as they can—which prevented it from following up Merchant Shipping Notice No. M. 1188, entitled "Good Ship Management", listed on page 37 of the report, and which emphasised the safe operation of ships at sea? Was there complacency on the part of his Department which for nine months made no attempt to ensure that that notice was followed up and put into practice? No prosecutions were entered into under the 1984 regulations. What is the cause? Is it the sloppiness of the Conservative Government, the shortage of civil servants or the sloppiness of the Department of Transport?

Mr. Channon: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is wrong about this. It is most unreasonable and unfair of him to make those comments. This afternoon I am merely reporting to the House what the judge has found. The suggestion that I have been conniving with the judge is astonishing and from an experienced Member of Parliament like the hon. Gentleman I find it surprising indeed. I have not made the decisions about the master and the chief officer: the judge has. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Secretary of State has powers of his own."] I do not have powers. In a formal investigation of this sort it is for the judge to make powers to remove the certificate. It is not me who decides that; it is he who decides that.
The hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the Department of Transport are not echoed in the judge's report. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to study that in full and then he will be able to make up his mind. We can return to the subject when we have all had a chance to study it.
There have been some reductions in the number of inspectors in my Department. The decline in the fleet has been far faster than the decline in the number of inspectors. [Interruption.] The percentage of inspectors compared with the numbers of the fleet is still virtually unchanged. [Interruption.] If anything, it may have increased. Hon. Gentlemen are trying to create an issue out of nothing. [Interruption.] No. If the judge had made those criticisms of my Department, I would not have shirked telling the House.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that, despite the fact that the judicial inquiry has found that a prosecution should not be brought against the company, the Director of Public Prosecutions is a free-standing authority in these matters and can examine all the documents if the Secretary of State submits them to him? Is it not true that if the director decides that there is a basis for prosecution, he can bring it, irrespective of the report that the Secretary of State has announced to Parliament today?

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman neglects the important point about the formal investigation and the


position that arises after a formal investigation of this type. I have a great deal of sympathy with some of the points made this afternoon, but that is inevitable and has always been the practice. It may well be that the system needs to be changed.

Mr. Tony Banks: Surely the Secretary of State is aware of the extreme disquiet on both sides of the House that Townsend Thoresen is getting away almost scot free? It is as though there has been a whitewash job. Three named officers will have to live with this on their conscience for the rest of their lives. In all justice the Secretary of State should be seen to penalise the company for the various mistakes that the management clearly made. Will the Secretary of State now say that he will tell Townsend Thoresen that it will have no more ferry movements until it has carried out all the proposed modifications and his Department has investigated the new management structure to ensure that the same mistakes will not be repeated? Will the boarding card system also mean that there is a named passenger list so that in the event of this happening again constituents, relatives and friends will not have to spend days in anguish waiting to know whether they have had someone on that ferry?

Mr. Channon: I am not sure that a named passenger list is the solution that the House wants. We should certainly consider it, but it is not necessarily a good idea or, indeed, one that would be welcome to the overwhelming majority of passengers for a variety of reasons, including the speed of getting on and off ships. Nor would it necessarily be accurate. I am not immediately attracted to the idea, but we shall consider the whole boarding card circumstances, as I have announced to the House.
The new management structure is already in place. In his report, the judge referred to that and to the fact that Townsend Thoresen has taken the necessary steps to make its ships safe. I am not responsible for what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) calls a whitewash job. I report to the House the facts as the judge found them. The idea that I have not criticised the company or that the company has not been criticised in the report is not true. The company has been criticised extremely severely in the report and the House will be able to study it.

Mr. Neil Thorne: My right hon. Friend has made some sensible and practical suggestions on what might be done to ensure that this type of accident never happens again. He has also told us that next week he expects to meet the various parties concerned in the shipping industry. After he has discussed the matter with those parties, will he consider announcing a timetable of when the practical steps can be implemented, because I am sure that that would go a long way to confirm the reassurance that is required by the public as to the future of ro-ro ferries?

Mr. Channon: I think that that is an extremely good idea.

Prisons (Overcrowding)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: When I applied for this Adjournment debate on the crisis in the prison system the situation was somewhat difficult. I note that, in the days that have gone by since that application, the situation has not improved to any great extent.
The Minister, who has been kind enough to come here today to reply, no doubt anticipates that what was said in The Times today is the basis upon which I wish to address the House. That is not entirely so. I would not dream of boring the House by repeating what has already been printed. Perhaps the Minister will deal, en passant, with the points raised in The Times as he answers the points that I wish to raise.
The truth of the matter is that, in the United Kingdom, we send to prison far more persons per head of the population than most of western Europe and, indeed, most of the civilised world. Indeed, the conditions into which we dispatch those persons would, I believe, disgrace even a developing country. If we are to solve the problem of imprisonment and the crisis in our prisons, the time has come to ask a series of fundamental questions.
The other day, Lord Chief Justice Lane, speaking at a judges' dinner, decried the practice of the press of seizing upon items of sentence and creating a great hoo-ha about them. I entirely agree with him; he has made an extremely valid point. In this country, in any one year, thousands, if not millions, of people are sentenced in various courts for various matters. The vast bulk of those sentences are absolutely correct and are never commented upon. However, in any massive sentencing organisation there must, from time to time, be some sentences that are either too severe or too lenient. It does not behove the system for publicity hungry politicians to seize upon those sentences and create the sort of hoo-ha that is then taken up by the press. All that does is, on occasion, to create stiffer sentences in other courts when such sentences need not be imposed.
The crisis in the prisons has been caused simply because the prison system is incapable of dealing with the number of prisoners it has now or will have in the weeks, months and years to come. It has meant that, time after time, those who work in the prison service find that their particular function nowadays is simply to incarcerate and hold prisoners. Very often that means incarcerating persons for 23 hours a day—consider what that means—for weeks, months or years.
I pay credit to the Minister for the beautiful way in which he dodged questions that I tabled to him at the beginning of this Parliament by saying that the prison-building programme was being kept under continuous review. Given that answer, it was obvious to me that the Department, for which the Minister answers, was carefully thinking about what to do. In those questions, I offered a series of alternatives; and when the Home Office failed to answer them, it was obvious that an announcement was about to be made.
We eventually saw the palliatives, as I described them, which included increasing remission time on sentences of fewer than 12 months. It will let out a number of prisoners and it may reduce the prison population a little, but the


Minister may recall that I raised the subject some years ago when the total number of persons in prison was in the low 40,000s. Shortly thereafter the Home Office introduced new parole rules. Instead of having to wait until almost half of his sentence before he was reviewed for parole, the period for which a prisoner had to wait was reduced to one third of sentences for some categories of offence; and in the following year 7,000 or 8,000 people were released. It was equally interesting to note that, of those released early, the amount of re-offending or breach of parole was minute. That little exercise proved that we do not need the long sentences that have been imposed. We also discovered that, notwithstanding that exercise, which let about 7,000 to 8,000 people out, the prison population increased.
The time has come when, if we are to solve the crisis in our prisons, we must ask two fundamental questions. First, why do we send people to prison? Secondly, under what conditions do we want people to remain in prison? The time has come for a commission to be set up to answer those questions. Perhaps on this last day of term, the Minister will join hands across the Chamber in the simple pursuit of solving those fundamental questions which have bedevilled society.
The reality of life is that our prisons are overfull and conditions are deplorable, with three to a cell, lack of exercise, poor diets, poor facilities, lack of education and lack of any rehabilitative programme. We should not blame the prison officers for that. They have to deal with the number of bodies sent to them. They have to live in contact with people who have been locked up in squalid and sordid conditions. When asked about the current overcrowding, the Prison Officers Association gives the civil answer that prison officers are now merely the Gagers of men rather than the protectors and guardians of society. In the old days, the object of the exercise was to rehabilitate the prisoner. Nowadays, we send in a raw recruit for his first sentence and we let out an experienced criminal at the other end. That serves none of us.
The position gets even worse. We do not have enough places for prisoners. We are extending the system into the police cells of our major cities. Why are London remand prisoners held in Bristol, Norwich, Windsor or a dozen other places? The simple answer is that there are no places in London. That must have an effect on the police. Police officers are necessary to look after and guard them 24 hours a day. Whether because of overtime or for other reasons, those officers are not performing the role of the police; they are performing the role of gaolers. They and their senior officers do not want that. One feels that there is a little hypocrisy on the part of a party that is dedicated to law and order, as every action taken by it has been to lessen the force of law and order that we need to keep our streets safe.
Police officers have had to work increasingly long hours. Prisoners are not being brought to the courts and justice is being delayed, which has meant that people are not being delivered from various places of detention to their second and subsequent trials after being convicted in their first. All in all, this means an increasing cost to our society, due to the delay in the judicial system, the misuse of police manpower and the increased costs of lawyers. I must declare an interest at this point as a practising barrister. I am well aware of the increased costs, because barristers now have to travel halfway around the country trying to find their clients in order to get instructions. That increases legal aid fund costs.
I ask the Minister to go with me down the path that leads towards an investigation into how we propose to use our prisons in the future. This is a serious matter and I shall no doubt return to it time and again in the months ahead. I ask the hon. Gentleman, in the short term, whether he will look back to the written questions that I submitted and to the alternatives I suggested—including temporary release. In the interests of humanity, if nothing else, might not conditions be improved for the 51,000 people now in custody? I think especially of those with psychiatric illnesses. In that way those who serve our society, prison officers and police alike, will return to their former roles, and our prisons will not be the disgrace of Europe that they now are. Our prison officers will have a worthwhile role again.
Does the Minister realise that conditions in our prisons today, particularly for those who are detained on remand, may well fly in the face of the European convention on human rights? In this country, we used to have a proud record on the way in which we treated our prisoners. Today, we do not enjoy that proud record. We have made our prisons the scandal and shame of Europe.
I propose not to take my full allotted time so as to leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford. West (Mr. Madden), who wishes to raise certain points.

Mr. Max Madden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) on securing the Adjournment debate and thank him for allowing me to contribute briefly to it.
Society needs to ensure that proper arrangements are made to prevent crime, that the victims of crime are given proper support—sometimes long-tern support—and that those who are taken out of society and put in prison for society's protection are treated in a civilised way.
I want to report to the House the experience of my former constituent, Mr. Robert Swindells, who recently served five days in Armley prison for refusing to pay a £25 fine for obstructing the highway during a London peace demonstration. That experience was recently described in the Bradford Telegraph and Argus as follows:
As a law breaker, he shared a cell of 96 so ft with animal rights protestor Ronnie Lee and a jewel thief from Liverpool named Lopez. There were 60 prisoners on the landing, sharing one toilet and one water-pipe. They had two 20-minute periods a day to use the toilet.
Swindells was quoted as saying the following:
'If you didn't you had to ring a bell. The answer might be 'yes' or 'do it through the door', depending on the officer on duty.
In Victorian days that toilet was for 20 fellows and t hat cell was for one. Conditions in Armley are three times as harsh as they were in Victorian times. Other prisoners told me it was the worst prison in England.
It's not the fault of the people running it. I didn't find the screws too bad. I didn't encounter any sadists.
We were locked up for 23 hours a day, which is very boring. The cells stink of urine. The slop bucket is emptied twice a day. It's pretty vile, especially in warm weather, very hot and stuffy. My predominating memory will be of that bucket. And you have to bear in mind you have to eat your meals in that atmosphere as well.
After 8 pm. they don't answer the bell for people to go to the toilet. You have the choice of doing it in the slop bucket and stinking out the cell, or doing it in a piece of paper or rag and chucking it out of the window. Every morning a prison officer goes round with a gang of men collecting them up.


Since that experience, Mr. Swindells has written to me saying that he made two friends among the long-term prisoners in Armley and that the thought of their plight breaks his heart.
It is appropriate that our last debate before the recess should be on overcrowding in our prisons. Society can be judged by the way in which it treats those whom it wishes to deprive of their liberty. In Armley they are treated disgracefully. I have sent the article to the Home Secretary. I hope that the Minister, in replying to this debate, will have some message of hope for the people enduring those disgraceful conditions, which are of great concern to many of my present and former constituents, as well as to solicitors and many others.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. John Patten): I listened with care to the brief intervention of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and I shall bring his remarks to the notice of my noble Friend Lord Caithness, who has ministerial responsibility for prisons. I also listened with great care to the comments of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). We are all aware of the considerable interest that he takes in prisons and prison welfare. I hope that it will not damage him in the eyes of his general management committee if he is praised by a Tory Minister, but his interest is remarkable and we certainly listen to what he says.
I welcome the opportunity to set out again the record of a Government who continue to demonstrate their commitment to improving the quality and quantity of prison accommodation. We have been going hard at that very necessary task since 1979. We are, of course, concerned about conditions in prisons and the conditions in which prison officers work. We are equally concerned with the proper course of justice and for the victim. I was glad that the hon. Member for Bradford, West also mentioned his concern for the victims. We should always remember to balance our concern about what goes on in prisons with concern for the victim.

Mr. Bermingham: indicated assent.

Mr. Patten: I am glad to see that the hon. Member for St. Helens, South agrees.
The prison population has risen extremely rapidly, and to record levels. Last Friday, 17 July, there were more than 51,200 sentenced and unsentenced prisoners in our prisons — 4,000 more than there were a year ago — and 735 mostly unsentenced prisoners were held in police cells awaiting transfer to prison department establishments. Those 51,000 people are held in accommodation designed for fewer than 42,000, which clearly causes us great concern and induces a considerable strain on prison service staff, who perform daily miracles of management and control to keep the system working. There is also a strain on the police, who are needed to fight crime on the streets and to detect and clear up serious crime in particular as well as to turn their attention to the important issue of crime prevention.
Overcrowding is not a new phenomenon that has suddenly occurred since 1979. The average prison population in this country has grown steadily and sometimes dramatically since the second world war. As the

hon. Members for St. Helens, South and for Bradford, West, like me, came to the House after 1979, I cannot blame them. [Interruption.] I am sorry—I forgot that the hon. Member for Bradford, West was a retread, but his second coming was after 1979. Perhaps I can partly blame him for the considerable cut in the prison building programme between 1974 and 1979—a cut of some 35 per cent. in real terms. Those hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches who were in the House before 1979 who protest about conditions inside our prisons and about overcrowding should remember their share of responsibility for the present-day circumstances in our prisons. It has taken a long time to make up that savage cut in prison building between 1974 and 1979.
Since 1979 the Government have introduced the biggest building and refurbishment programme this century. It is designed to produce 17,500 places at least by 1995–20 new prisons, with three already opened. There has been an increase of 3,600 prison places since June 1983 and there will be nearly another 2,000 by the end of this calender year. The programme will produce 3,000 new places in the 12 months from September and five new establishments will come on stream to give much needed relief to the prison officers and to those who are locked up, sometimes two or three to a cell. The building programme is matched by a refurbishment programme in other parts of the already built prison establishment that will help to improve both the quality and quantity of accommodation.
In his statement last week my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced his intention to accelerate and expand the prison building programme beyond the extra 17,500 places that will be achieved by 1995. This will mean more prisons and more places in prisons to relieve overcrowding and to make it possible for those who receive sentences to be received in prisons and for them to have better conditions which hopefully will enable more of them to be released and not reoffend.
Capital investment is an important issue. Spending on prison building has risen by over 100 per cent. in real terms, taking into account inflation, since 1979. We will set up a prisons building board to ensure that we set about the business of building new prisons efficiently and quickly to a high standard. That is something that we need very much. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a statement in due course about the composition of that board, but I can tell the House that it will be small and compact, that it will have a chief executive, who will drive forward the prison building programme, and that it will have representatives from those in the private sector who have been the customers of major building projects who are able to help and advise on how to make sure that we get prisons put up much more quickly than hitherto.
There is no reason why prison buildings should not change in the way that hospital buildings have changed inside the National Health Service under the basic nucleus concept of design that is being used. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, there has been a huge rebuilding programme in the NHS.
We will need to turn to the expertise of the building and construction industry, with its fast track and design and build techniques, which will enable us to get those prisons built much more quickly than hitherto. The prisons building board will have a fundamental part to play in the next two or three years in making sure that the increased number of prisons that my right hon. Friend will announce in due course will be built as speedily as possible.
The other side of the coin is what we are doing to try to keep people out of prison, and that is very important. We may have a chance to debate this on another occasion, but I think it is fair to say that we have the widest choice of non-custodial sentences available to the courts anywhere in Western Europe. Yesterday, I spent some time at the Inner London probation service visiting just such a facility, where it is clear that the criticism that one sometimes hears, which may sometimes be true, that non-custodial sentences are a soft option is simply not the case. They can be a punitive option.
We also encouraged, and issued guidance on, cautioning by the police. We are trying to help magistrates' courts to improve their performance by issuing guidance on efficiency, reducing delays and bail practices, all of which are most important. Since 1979 we have built 48 more court buildings. The number of circuit judges has gone up from 315 to 390, and we are looking, in three police areas, at statutory time limits to the period that the accused may be remanded in custody before coming to trial. When we get the results of those inquiries, we shall consider whether we should introduce the statutory schemes across England and Wales.
We have increased the resources for Crown courts. We have introduced various provisions to speed up the delivery of justice. All these measures have helped. They are no substitute for the pressing need of new accommodation, but that takes time. The Government have consistently shown themselves to be willing to get to grips with the problem of the growing prison population. We are not concerned with the short-term treatment of difficulties in response to problems in our prison system, but are taking a much longer view.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South wants us to take a big hang long-term view. He wants us to have a Royal Commission. It is said that patriotism is the last resort of the scoundrel. I think that suggestions for Royal Commissions are the last resort of politicians who have run out of intellectual steam. I do not believe that of the hon. Gentleman and I do not intend him any discourtesy. However, to think that one can whisk a Royal Commission out of the air and that that will make things better is mistaken.
The hon. Gentleman knows full well what needs to be done. He has his own views, and he is a man of some influence in the Labour party nationally. He could do an enormous amount to help if only he would speak to some

Labour-controlled local authorities with police watch committees—for example, nine inner London boroughs and Manchester. Rather than harrying the police and making their already difficult task worse, such authorities should be doing all that they can to work with the police on crime prevention. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to think that crime prevention is important.
In places such as Manchester and inner London, the police and the general public should work together to make sure that crime is prevented, so that people are not tempted to commit crime and then, if charged and found guilty, end up in prison. That would be a more constructive attitude, and we do not need Royal Commissions to tell us that it was a disaster when, between 1974 and 1979, the Labour Government cut the prison building programme. We do not need a Royal Commission to tell us that we are struggling with the after effects of that.
I suspect that this will not be the last time that I answer a debate on this subject, although it is unusual to find oneself doing so towards teatime on Friday. Anybody in my constituency listening to this afternoon's proceedings on the wireless will know that I am telling the truth when I am late for my constituency advice centre this afternoon and explain that I was kept later than expected in the House of Commons. It is unusual in our procedures for a statement to be made at 2.30 on a Friday afternoon.
In the dying moments of the term, before we leave for our summer holidays, I conclude by saying that I hope that Opposition Members and you, Mr. Speaker, will have a very enjoyable and happy summer holiday, and I wish our retiring Clerk of the House of Commons, Sir Kenneth Bradshaw, who has made his last appearance at the Table this afternoon, a very happy retirement.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the Minister, who has pre-empted me. Before I adjourn the House, may I also take the opportunity to wish the Minister, all hon. Members and all members of the staff a happy and restful recess. As this is the last occasion when the Clerk will be at the Table, I want to say how much we appreciate his long service to the House. We all wish him well on his retirement.

The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, till Wednesday 21 October, pursuant to the resolution of the House of 13 July.

Adjourned at five minutes past Four o'clock.